Resident Evil 3 leaked - My personal thoughts

Broken Shotgun

Well-known member
Jun 15, 2019
It has finally been leaked, so expect to see it at Jump Festa later on this month.



My personal thoughts, are that Jill looks great, but Carlos looks rather strange. I wasn't really expecting Nemesis to look like his 1999 counterpart either, considering Mr. X, "Gonna give it 2 ya!" was also radically altered, with his dumb fedora hat...

I'm guessing the gun powder from the RE 2 remake will feature again, even though, yes... I know that was in the original 1999 version of 3: Nemesis. The producer talked about it in a video once, and failed to say it was from 1999 instead of 2019. But yeah, that just goes to show that it's probably unlikely that anybody from the original Capcom team is even involved with the development of the new games that they're producing under the RE Engine, if I were to say so myself.
I think this remaster would be surely good and something many people would be looking after as well.
I'm not holding my breath to see the Hunters in, or certain other enemies. In the prior remake, they omitted the spiders, the crows, the (original) plants, and a lot more creatures were left out, as well as a lot of locations and more. It was a good game, but also vastly disappointing when you compare it to the original 1998 masterpiece.

For example, when Leon and Ada take the cable car to the lab, it wasn't that creepy or suspenseful at all.
I think the amount of effort in this remaster would be revealed soon enough. I am guessing sounds would play part.
The thing is, these millennials don't have a clue about what made the franchise great in the first place. The previous remake was decent, but practically faithless.

They never even mentioned anything about 'the mansion incident' from the first game, and Brad never appeared as a zombie. While I don't care about alternate costumes, these were actually unlocked in the original game, as opposed to getting them by advance ordering the base game or buying downloadable content. And like I said, tons of the original creatures DO NOT appear in the remake.

Another thing that was dumb, to say the least, was that the A and B scenarios never really felt unique. They repeated boss fights and everything. It just felt severely lacking, and the extra modes were just kind of tacked on. Also, the addition of the original soundtrack hardly made a dent either, as the volume is so low and plays out of sync as well.

It could have been way better. It's not even about the "RE Engine" or the camera angles at all, like many people often claim. Even though Leon does look too cute when compared to his 1998 counterpart.

Meh. ?
I think world belongs to millenials and the new gen now. We can't do much about it anymore.
I think Nemesis will probably be like Arnie too, firing bullets everywhere. ?

Nothing is gonna stop this bad boy from getting his Jill sandwich. ?‍♀️?‍♂️
Nemesis apparently won't be in the title, so the game is just called RE3. Ah, that's BS. ?

Come on, now. With a name like "Nemesis", Capcom has got to have a punchline for their game. ?
Nemesis apparently won't be in the title, so the game is just called RE3. Ah, that's BS. ?

Seriously? Capcom kinda missed the mark on that one... it was quite an opportunity they had, and they just gave it up. :confused:

xenonVirus. Never actually played Resident Evil, just watched a lot of YouTube videos on it. :unsure:
I'm not expecting much from this franchise any longer, and once these remakes stop, I don't know what they will do when it comes to sequels, and their spin off games are already utterly crap, so I'm ruling those out now when it comes to making the series better.

For years, Capcom have just been throwing different shit at the wall to see if it sticks. The plot hardly makes any sense now, and any references they put in that mention prior events are just their way of reminding people of when the series was at its best. But they cannot do a game like the original trilogy, as they haven't got the knack for that nowadays.

They already made a lot of sequels in the style of Call of Duty, but the series wasn't supposed to be like that, and so these particular entries have normally disappointed even the most die hard of fans. The reason Capcom made the games about action in the first place, was because the original remake was a critical success, but it wasn't a commercial success in that it didn't sell a lot of units, and companies rely on making money.

Somehow, in 2005, Capcom struck gold with Resident Evil 4. The game didn't really feel like a true part of the series, though, but it won over a lot of people... for a while. After that, we just got the same dish served up to us for like a decade. It took Capcom over 15 years to understand that this move towards shooting was upsetting the fans. Then with Silent Hills getting cancelled, they just did their own similar game, and put the Resident Evil name on the cover to sell it. But here's the thing: I know if you took out all the tiny references and whatnot, you could be forgiven for thinking it was not a sequel at all.

I also noticed that Resident Evil: Revelations 2 was a blatant copy of The Last of Us. While I did enjoy that game, and I appreciated the fact that Capcom made Barry a playable character, it still felt like a kick in the nuts, because Capcom essentially copied another company's mega-selling title. After that, I began to suspect that Capcom didn't have much juice left in the tank, and I want to think they know what they're doing, but I feel like they're now a one trick pony, relying on nostalgia to get by. Because like I said, they are doing good with remakes, but once they cannot remake any more of the original games, what will happen next?

Part of me knows that Capcom has been unsure of how to go forward, so the last several sequels have ripped off other games and also movies, and I feel like these remakes are just a way to grab everyone's attention, because the old games are so legendary, and of course people will get excited for a remake. But the thing is, remakes, even if they are good, don't really mean anything, since they don't move the story ahead in any real capacity. Usually, they are not even intended to be canonical either, so they come across as being more like "fan service" type games instead of proper games that will go somewhere in the timeline.

Even if this next remake is very successful, I feel like it will be a game that people would want to play for a month, wait on the extra content, and then forget about it down the road. I'd rather play the original RE 2 every single day of the year, than play the 2019 updated hack job.

The RE 2 remake was really nothing special. I knew it was not going to be able to topple the first remake, which is still arguably the best survival horror game ever made. But as hard as they tried, Capcom dropped the ball with a lot of aspects of that game. They left out so many enemies and more, and it was hardly anything like the 2002 remake. What made the 2002 remake so good, was that it stayed faithful to the original, while improving it. Unlike the 2019 remake, it subtracted nothing. That's the thing. I'm really not expecting the next remake to be faithful either, giving what happened with 2, and Project Resistance looks horrible.
Then again, gaming sequels aren't that great unless they have a good story to back them up. I also agree with you that RE 3 is sort of a cash grab. I'd take RE and even RE 2 over RE 3 any day... if I could actually buy it.

xenonVirus. Kind of sad how so many gaming sequels end up being company cashgrabs.
That's kind of why I said on Fandom, that I don't want The Last of Us to end up as big of a franchise as Resident Evil. Once that happens, you know they will just milk it for all it is worth and spoil greatness. I also love Days Gone, and in my opinion, that game is awesome and plays very similarly to The Last of Us as well. And yeah, I know it has its flaws, but I had so much fun with that game around Easter. I'll definitely play it again in the new year!

Many horror film franchises that are still listed as being among the best of all-time, were ruined nonetheless with inferior sequels. Sometimes a series can go on forever like Final Fantasy, because the stories aren't always interconnected, and each game alone is wonderfully made, so fans can still maintain enthusiasm for having further entries. But with games that have an arc, they end up just making them kind of ridiculously drawn out, and with Resident Evil, the core stuff has already been used up long ago.

Wesker is gone. Umbrella is gone. Umbrella may be supposedly returning and they are good now, but I feel like that blue Umbrella story from 7: Biohazard is kind of just being forced upon us. Many characters are seldom seen anymore. You cannot count remakes (since the story is essentially being recycled from a prior title) and games set in-between the main series like the Chronicles or Revelations side story games, should not really be counted either. They're not 'new' stories, as such. They may show the player things that are going on between the main games, but they are normally set before a main entry, so in a manner of speaking, we still haven't seen Jill since Resident Evil 5, even though the very first Revelations game was released in 2012. The setting for that game is around the time they set up the BSAA in 2005, but with RE 5, it was set in either 2008 or 2009. So in other words, Jill and Chris' adventures in that game make it a prequel.

I'm sure this remake will be great, but I still think it will be a game that you'll enjoy for a month or so, then it will not be worth going back to. That's just how I feel. Maybe I'll be wrong. I hope so. But I just know that Capcom is depending too much on nostalgia, and revisiting their past array of titles.
I hope they don't have another demo again, but they probably will. That one they released in respect of RE 2 showed a fair bit of the game, and it kind of ruined the surprise element.
I don't think demo would be a good idea. They would make more sales if they keep only complete game out.

Latest content