Resident Evil 3 Remake Incredible Mod Fixes RE3 REmake

[Turo602]

You must be registered for see medias

You must be registered for see medias

Holy sh*t, this is exactly what the game should have been like. Having Nemesis be a relentless pursuer rather than a scripted nuisance drastically increases tension and fits perfectly with the remake's more action fueled tone. He actually looks terrifying here, especially in the 2nd video which showcases Nemesis chasing Jill around in the streets. Such wasted potential. To think this one difference would have made a world of difference in the game's overall perception because this really does look incredible.

 

[bSTAR_182]

Damn that was some intense gameplay. Would have been a blast having to manage through these type of moments in the game.
Completely agree how they dropped the ball with this one. At least have Nemesis be the prominent threat throughout Raccoon City and the RPD before using him for specific boss fights before and after the hospital bit.

 

[Jonipoon]

These are sadly nothing more than cleverly edited clips put together with the help of mods, but it does prove that with the right tools and enough patience it will eventually be possible for modders to create a complete overhaul of the entire game from start to finish. It's still a long way to go, but I'm sure that eventually we'll even get completely new custom made areas, such as the clock tower, graveyard, and a revamped Uptown.

 

[RipvanX]

While on that note, has anyone tried applying true classic costume mods or anything like that? I recently tried applying them to my game with the Fluffy 5000 software via Nexusmods site, but they won’t appear in game. The Julia Voth face mod won’t work either past the initial flashback scene in the beginning. So strange, I can’t seem to find an answer why the cosmetic mods are broken.

 

[KennedyKiller]

This alone wouldn't fix R3make. The incredible amount of cut content. Lack of any good puzzles. Lack of replayability. MASSIVE changes to the story. And terrible rewriting of Jill and other characters would still have this doomed to be trash. Would it be BETTER than what we got? Yeah. But improving a 2/10 game to a 4/10 game still isn't worth the extra effort in my opinion.

 

[Turo602]

This alone wouldn't fix R3make. The incredible amount of cut content. Lack of any good puzzles. Lack of replayability. MASSIVE changes to the story. And terrible rewriting of Jill and other characters would still have this doomed to be trash. Would it be BETTER than what we got? Yeah. But improving a 2/10 game to a 4/10 game still isn't worth the extra effort in my opinion.

You play Sonic games. There's absolutely no way you think Resident Evil 3 is a 2/10 game. Come on.

 

[RipvanX]

REmake 3 is a deeply flawed game but in no way is it that bad. One of the most disappointing? Sure, but it’s not shovelware levels of bad, no way. Go play some crap games like The Unknown City Episode 1, Damnation, Superman 64, Mega Man X7 and Umbrella Corps and come back and say this is still a 2/10 lol!

 

[KennedyKiller]

You play Sonic games. There's absolutely no way you think Resident Evil 3 is a 2/10 game. Come on.

Lol, it is most certainly a 2/10 game. As are nearly all Sonic games post Dreamcast. That said, while Sonic games post Dreamcast may be 2/10 or worse, at least there's a "so bad they're good" quality to a lot of them. Like you can still enjoy them DESPITE how terrible they are because their flaws are unintentionally entertaining. R3make doesn't even had THAT going for it.

REmake 3 is a deeply flawed game but in no way is it that bad. One of the most disappointing? Sure, but it’s not shovelware levels of bad, no way. Go play some crap games like The Unknown City Episode 1, Damnation, Superman 64, Mega Man X7 and Umbrella Corps and come back and say this is still a 2/10 lol!

And yes. It's WORSE than shovelware games. Those we all know what they are. They're bad. They're shovelware. This was treated as a AAA game. At least things like Superman 64 and Mega Man X7 have some sort of mystique about them because you wonder "Wow. How did someone f*ck up so big?" Aside from Unknown City Episode 1 and Damnation, I've played the other three you've listed. And yeah...They're bad. But just because those are 0/10 that negates this from being a 2/10? Guys. I get it. You love RE. But R3make is bad. It's plain and simply the worst big budget mainline RE game Capcom has ever released.

 

[Turo602]

Lol, it is most certainly a 2/10 game. As are nearly all Sonic games post Dreamcast. That said, while Sonic games post Dreamcast may be 2/10 or worse, at least there's a "so bad they're good" quality to a lot of them. Like you can still enjoy them DESPITE how terrible they are because their flaws are unintentionally entertaining. R3make doesn't even had THAT going for it.

And yes. It's WORSE than shovelware games. Those we all know what they are. They're bad. They're shovelware. This was treated as a AAA game. At least things like Superman 64 and Mega Man X7 have some sort of mystique about them because you wonder "Wow. How did someone f*ck up so big?" Aside from Unknown City Episode 1 and Damnation, I've played the other three you've listed. And yeah...They're bad. But just because those are 0/10 that negates this from being a 2/10? Guys. I get it. You love RE. But R3make is bad. It's plain and simply the worst big budget mainline RE game Capcom has ever released.

Your credibility is sinking, bro. This is AlbertWesker level stuff. You're better than that.

 

[KennedyKiller]

Your credibility is sinking, bro. This is AlbertWesker level stuff. You're better than that.

You're telling me you've never watched a cheesy 80's horror movie, known it was awful, but still enjoyed it for how awful it was, then conversely have not watched a film that's just bad, without even an ounce of enjoyment? It's the same concept here comparing Sonic to Resident Evil. I'll acknowledge when both are bad, but at least one gives me a sensation of enjoyment because of the type of bad that it is. I mean, if it's credibility you want me to redeem I'll give you the list of why R3make is straight up BAD, and you can judge my credibility after that XD

 

[Turo602]

You're telling me you've never watched a cheesy 80's horror movie, known it was awful, but still enjoyed it for how awful it was, then conversely have not watched a film that's just bad, without even an ounce of enjoyment? It's the same concept here comparing Sonic to Resident Evil. I'll acknowledge when both are bad, but at least one gives me a sensation of enjoyment because of the type of bad that it is. I mean, if it's credibility you want me to redeem I'll give you the list of why R3make is straight up BAD, and you can judge my credibility after that XD

Your gratuitous ratings already tells me you have no serious metric for scoring games and instead prioritize your own subjective opinions over fair assessment. Personal fanboy gripes, nitpicks, and comparisions shouldn't affect your ability to judge the game on its own merits. Most of us agree Resident Evil 3 was a disappointment, but it's far from being an awful video game. It's definitely not one of the greatest games ever made, but to say the difference between something like Superman 64 and Resident Evil 3 is a mere 2 points pretty much proves you don't know what you're talking about. Now please tell us you've been hacked so we can all move on.

 

[KennedyKiller]

Your gratuitous ratings already tells me you have no serious metric for scoring games and instead prioritize your own subjective opinions over fair assessment. Personal fanboy gripes, nitpicks, and comparisions shouldn't affect your ability to judge the game on its own merits. Most of us agree Resident Evil 3 was a disappointment, but it's far from being an awful video game. It's definitely not one of the greatest games ever made, but to say the difference between something like Superman 64 and Resident Evil 3 is a mere 2 points pretty much proves you don't know what you're talking about. Now please tell us you've been hacked so we can all move on.

You can't judge R3make on the merit of just another "video game." It is a REMAKE of a video game. So you have to judge it not only as a game, but as a remake of a game. Were it an original game with it's own IP it would have been...passable. But it's not. It's a remake of an established game. So you have to take that information on the games creation and direction when judging it. So its an "ok" game on its own. And a TERRIBLE remake. So that means as an average rating it's gonna between ok and terrible. In other words, bad.

 

[Turo602]

You can't judge R3make on the merit of just another "video game." It is a REMAKE of a video game. So you have to judge it not only as a game, but as a remake of a game. Were it an original game with it's own IP it would have been...passable. But it's not. It's a remake of an established game. So you have to take that information on the games creation and direction when judging it. So its an "ok" game on its own. And a TERRIBLE remake. So that means as an average rating it's gonna between ok and terrible. In other words, bad.

That makes no sense. You just said the game was okay. Literally no one rates it separately as a remake and then factors that into their final score because the original game is irrelevant and the game is appealing to modern gamers. Telling someone who has never played the original RE3 that the remake is a bad game because you're personally upset about it being a bad remake just makes you look like an angry fanboy rather than someone who knows what they're talking about. I know it's not your job to rate or review games, but that's just such a garbage and hyperbolic take.

 

[KennedyKiller]

That makes no sense. You just said the game was okay. Literally no one rates it separately as a remake and then factors that into their final score because the original game is irrelevant and the game is appealing to modern gamers. Telling someone who has never played the original RE3 that the remake is a bad game because you're personally upset about it being a bad remake just makes you look like an angry fanboy rather than someone who knows what they're talking about. I know it's not your job to rate or review games, but that's just such a garbage and hyperbolic take.

This is literally exactly how we judge remakes of movies...why are video games any different? Movie A. had X,Y,Z, and Remake does not. It hurts overall product. Is labeled as bad. That's how movie remakes are judged.

 

[Turo602]

This is literally exactly how we judge remakes of movies...why are video games any different? Movie A. had X,Y,Z, and Remake does not. It hurts overall product. Is labeled as bad. That's how movie remakes are judged.

Why are video games different you say? Maybe because you need things like consoles to play video games and said video games and consoles aren't being sold anymore and therefore aren't accessible to consumers. This is why remakes are often interchangeable with their original and share the same canon. Something you don't really see in Hollywood. And to top it off, you're just flat out wrong because no one judges remakes in Hollywood like that either because you're assuming all remakes are considered bad if they don't follow the original closely, even though a shot for shot remake like Psycho is considered awful and a full on musical like Little Shop of Horrors is considered great.

 

[KennedyKiller]

Why are video games different you say? Maybe because you need things like consoles to play video games and said video games and consoles aren't being sold anymore and therefore aren't accessible to consumers. This is why remakes are often interchangeable with their original and share the same canon. Something you don't really see in Hollywood. And to top it off, you're just flat out wrong because no one judges remakes in Hollywood like that either because you're assuming all remakes are considered bad if they don't follow the original closely, even though a shot for shot remake like Psycho is considered awful and a full on musical like Little Shop of Horrors is considered great.

First of all, the vast majority of remakes are considered bad lol. Total Recall, Robocop, Rat Race, Clash of the Titans, etc. etc. I could go on and on. You're not a simpleton Turo. You KNOW most remakes are considered garbage. You're into pop culture. You're being obstinate to stick to your point rather than admitting I'm right. And Yes, Video games are for outdated consoles, so the remake takes advantage of those. And? That's EXACTLY what remakes tend to do. Movies were made with old and outdated technology, and are remade with today's comparatively remarkable technology. But better technology does not inherently make something better. Why do most people hate King Kong 78 over the original from the 30's, despite the fact that the 70's has color, better visual effects, etc? They remade it. It was considered "bad" by a vast majority despite the updated technology. That reasoning is the EXACT same as your updated console mentality. So no, in that regard, film and video games are no different. Please come up with a better argument for how video game remakes and film remakes differ when talking about how we judge them.

 

[Turo602]

First of all, the vast majority of remakes are considered bad lol. Total Recall, Robocop, Rat Race, Clash of the Titans, etc. etc. I could go on and on. You're not a simpleton Turo. You KNOW most remakes are considered garbage. You're into pop culture. You're being obstinate to stick to your point rather than admitting I'm right. And Yes, Video games are for outdated consoles, so the remake takes advantage of those. And? That's EXACTLY what remakes tend to do. Movies were made with old and outdated technology, and are remade with today's comparatively remarkable technology. But better technology does not inherently make something better. Why do most people hate King Kong 78 over the original from the 30's, despite the fact that the 70's has color, better visual effects, etc? They remade it. It was considered "bad" by a vast majority despite the updated technology. That reasoning is the EXACT same as your updated console mentality. So no, in that regard, film and video games are no different. Please come up with a better argument for how video game remakes and film remakes differ when talking about how we judge them.

Wow, this went over your head, big time. And you're completely deviating from the main point. Maybe re-read my comment before hubrisly declaring yourself victor.

 

[KennedyKiller]

Wow, this went over your head, big time. And you're completely deviating from the main point. Maybe re-read my comment before hubrisly declaring yourself victor.

I read your comment. And it's that the change in technology is what makes us judge remakes of games differently than films. And you're wrong. That's why we judge them the SAME. Yes, Little Shop of Horrors is amazing, and it's a remake. But that's the exception, not the rule. Hence why I started off by saying "the vast majority." Obviously not every remake is automatically worse by virtue of having different content. But I never made that claim to begin with. I said by having LESS content, and I assumed you would know the obvious point of "if the content is changed, but it still worse people don't like that either." It's obvious enough that I figured it didn't need stated. Psycho is another good example you brought up, that shows how remakes are usually worse. You're right. It's a (nearly) shot for shot remake, but also now in color. Better technology. Bad product. Which I've said already.

If you are going to remake something, you already have a groundwork for the product. That means you need to do one of two thing, if not BOTH things for a successful remake. Keep the content for the original, but expand upon it. Or make an entirely new story based off the original source material that is told much better, with new and interesting ideas that still capitalize off of the ideas of the original. That's the case for both film AND video games, technology not even being incorporated yet. Resident Evil 3, nor the majority of film remakes, do either of these things, or at least don't do them effectively. You listed ONE remake that's better than the original. But can HONESTLY say that's the rule, not the outlier. Most film remakes are widely considered bad. Despite the fact that they're newer, shinier, and employee better technology, just like game remakes. So why can you not use the same set of base rules for judging them? Obviously judging games is going to have a bit MORE rules because it's an interactive medium, but the base rules are still gonna be the same. You console update argument still holds no water because technology update as a whole is still present when doing film remakes.

You also stated "no one judges remakes like that," which is bogus. Pull up ANY film review of a remade movie, and in 85% of them, the reviewer is going to acknowledge it's a remake. Which means they have a preconceived notion of the source material, and that notion is going to influence their review one way or the other. I mean come ON Turo. You know flat out that remakes are often considered bad. I'm sure if I dug around this forum alone I could find examples of you saying stuff negative about remakes because that's what we do here is talk pop culture.

 

[RipvanX]

You must be registered for see images

 

[Turo602]

I read your comment. And it's that the change in technology is what makes us judge remakes of games differently than films. And you're wrong.

No, you're wrong because that's not what I said at all.

Obviously not every remake is automatically worse by virtue of having different content. But I never made that claim to begin with.

Yes, you did.

This is literally exactly how we judge remakes of movies...why are video games any different? Movie A. had X,Y,Z, and Remake does not. It hurts overall product. Is labeled as bad. That's how movie remakes are judged.

But back to the main point since you keep droning on and on about film remakes just to avoid admitting that you made a terribly hyperbolic sh*t take. No one is arguing about the quality of remakes. That's not the topic nor is it relevant to how people rate video games. Movies are timeless and remakes are treated entirely differently than video game remakes which are catered to a brand new audience who is still invested in an ongoing property due to lack of accessibility of older hardware and software.

Acknowledging the work something is based on isn't the same as judging the work on its own, judging it in comparison to the original, and then weighing the 2 and finding the medium like you did. There is no special formula for remakes. A game review is a game review. It's being rated as a product and not from the point of view of a fanboy with strange preferences and gripes no one cares about. It's being reviewed for a mass audience, not Resident Evil fanboys.

There is no prerequisite that one must play the original game before doing a review of a remake because they must be able to compare it and judge it so that they can figure out the final score... Yes, they do their research for the sake of being informative, but no one in their right mind is going to dock a point because they don't like Jill's new face or Nemesis doesn't chase you around like in the original, they cut content, story is different, etc.