Several days ago, Capcom released the highly-anticipated remake of Resident Evil 3, which takes players back to Raccoon City. Although Capcom previously revealed that both games had an overlap period during development, the massive success of Resident Evil 2 set a high-expectation for the re-imagining of the third game, giving Capcom the insurmountable task of developing a sequel that will surpass its predecessor. A fair warning to readers that this article will have MAJOR SPOILERS.
As of the moment, it is pretty hard to tell whether Capcom was able to surpass Resident Evil 2 with Resident Evil 3 remake for sales, given that the reception for the latest reimagining is mixed. Unlike 2019's Resident Evil 2, Resident Evil 3 remake is significantly different than its original counterpart. Sure, the major plot points of the game still remain true to some extent, but Capcom has been more liberal in switching events around this time. Many players welcomed the changes, but some hardcore fans were not happy with how the game turned out to be, and others criticized it for being too short and leaning too much on action-heavy elements.
So is Resident Evil 3 a bad remake, focusing on the idea of what a remake should do? Well, the answer to that question is no: it's actually a really good re-imagining of a classic game. By now, Resident Evil fans should know that Capcom hates to be predictable. It is worth remembering that the remakes of both Resident Evil and Resident Evil 2 were more or less faithful to their original counterparts, but with additional storylines and slightly changed mechanics to give veteran players a new experience. Sure, it would have been easier for Capcom to adopt the same formula to Resident Evil 3, but the studio decided to take a different approach, resulting in an even better sequel for the following reasons.
Resident Evil 3 Remake Surpasses All Expectations
In the first ten minutes of Resident Evil 3 alone, it is already apparent that the remake is significantly different than the original game. It is obvious that Capcom knows that players are anticipating to see some of the iconic moments from the original game, and in a very gutsy move, decides to cut all of those out, surprising players when things don't go the way they did in the original. This may be disappointing to some, but reworking the game in its entirety allowed both new and veteran players a fresh and new way to experience the game, and at the same time, providing a better and stronger plot.
A good example of this is the way Brad Vickers died in Resident Evil 3 remake. In the original game, Brad died in front of Jill Valentine, after he was captured and killed by Nemesis. This scene soon became one of the most iconic and memorable deaths in the Resident Evil franchise, and surprisingly enough, Capcom decided not to include this in the remake. Instead, the 2020 reimagining finally gave Brad his redemption arc, allowing him to sacrifice his life to save Jill. Sure it's disappointing that Brad was killed by zombies instead of Nemesis, but the change made for a better story, making Brad's death more meaningful as compared to the original game.
Additionally, the significant changes that Capcom introduced in Resident Evil 3 remake allowed players to experience the same story but in a different way. Unlike in Resident Evil 2, Capcom was more liberal in shuffling around the sequences of events in Resident Evil 3. A good number of locations from the original game such as the park, the graveyard, and the dead factory were removed in favor of a more expansive hospital and the introduction of NEST 2.
Of course, while it may be disappointing to have these locations removed, it made Jill and Carlos' route to their escape more realistic than the original. Both the park and the graveyard only existed because they led to the dead factory, which is Umbrella's disposal facility. However, having such a facility that conducts illegal operations above ground is unrealistic, which is why a highly-sophisticated lab beneath the Hospital, which is also owned by Umbrella, makes more sense in the grand scheme of things.
It May Be Action-Heavy, But It's Balanced
Another criticism that Resident Evil 3 remake keeps on getting is that the game is heavily reliant on action-heavy sequences. It is worth remembering that Resident Evil 3 has always been more action-oriented than Resident Evil 2 and the original Resident Evil. But this is not to say that Resident Evil 3 remake is not survival horror, yes it does have its intense and fast-paced moments, but there are still horror elements in the remake to balance it all out.
To put it into context, Resident Evil and Resident Evil 2's horror elements were derived from the claustrophobic environments that players find themselves in. However, in Resident Evil 3, horror comes from the fast-paced battles with Nemesis, making every encounter with the monster a near-death experience. This is why most of the action-heavy gameplay of the remake is seen with every Nemesis encounter, which makes sense due to the fact that Nemesis is much smarter and more menacing than Mr. X and the original Tyrant.
But to balance it all out, and to retain the feel of previous Resident Evil games, Resident Evil 3 still has classic survival-horror elements as seen in the police station and hospital sequences of the game. When players get to control Carlos in the remake, they are taken back to the RPD and almost immediately, the overall vibe of the game changes from high-paced intense action to the claustrophobic nature of Resident Evil 2. The same applies to the hospital and sewers part of the game, where players find themselves in a confined space, making every zombie, licker, and hunter, much more terrifying.
Of course, it would be easier for Capcom to just use the same formula that made Resident Evil 2 remake successful for Resident Evil 3. However, the studio is aware of the fact that sequels should evolve from its predecessor, and this is exactly why Capcom introduced these changes to the remake. Towards the end of Resident Evil 2 remake, players will notice that the pace of the game is more intense and action-heavy, and Resident Evil 3 remake picks up exactly from that point. Looking at both games as a whole, Resident Evil 3 perfectly compliments Resident Evil 2, which is what a good sequel should be.
But It's Not Perfect
Although Resident Evil 3 is not a bad remake, it is important to acknowledge that it's not perfect either. Similar to its original counterpart, the game's main campaign is relatively short, due to the fact that the remake did not include any additional storylines to the game. Sure, UBCS member Tyrell may have been given an expanded role in the game, but Brad Vickers died too soon, Dario Rosso's appearance is mostly just for the sake of having him there, and players didn't even get to meet and know the civilians that Jill and Carlos fought so hard to rescue.
Additionally, Resident Evil 3 lacks build-up and most of the time it feels like the game expects that its already players know Resident Evil 3's story and characters from the original game. Moreover, every encounter with Nemesis is scripted, which takes away the element of surprise similar to Resident Evil 2's Mr. X, and while Nemesis is definitely more terrifying than the original, his appearances are mostly predictable.
In the end, Resident Evil 3 remake is not perfect. It has a lot of drawbacks and maybe the changes that Capcom introduced are too drastic for hardcore players, but it is by no means a bad remake. Resident Evil 3 may not be for everyone, especially to those who are looking for a shot-for-shot reimagining of the 1999 game. But nostalgia aside, the latest reimagining of Resident Evil 3 offers an intense and scary experience that allows players to experience the same story but in a different way, which is what a good remake should do.
Resident Evil 3 is out now for the PC, PS4, and Xbox One.