GRcade

Zilnad wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:It's probably not marked as a spoiler because it already happened in 1998, when RE2 was originally released. The statute of limitations on story spoilers from RE3 has probably passed now.

That other character was never in Resi 3 so I can see why people would be annoyed to have it spoiled. I don't think it's really a spoiler though, just a really cool reference to 2 and it's made me more excited to play it.

Buffalo wrote:I think I only ever played RE3 once so all of it is going to feel fresh.
MP mode or no, I’m not paying 50 wraps for it though.

IGN wrote:Like Resident Evil 2 before it, Resident Evil 3’s 2020 remake does an amazing job of recapturing the horror and tension of the late ‘90s original while completely modernizing its gameplay. It plays like a 2020 game because it is a 2020 game. The classic world is brought to life in glorious detail, and smart level design makes exploring it a delight and replaying it almost compulsory. If only all remakes could be this good; bring on the next one. 9/10

Game Informer wrote:With this remake, Capcom has greatly improved one of my least-loved entries in the series. Resident Evil 3’s greater focus on action affords you fewer opportunities to stop and think, but Jill's adventure is an incredible thrill ride. From the first moment that Nemesis burst through the wall and reached out with one of his tendrils, I felt my heart begin to race. I don’t think it slowed down again until the credits rolled. 9/10

Gamesradar+ wrote:A TENSE, JUMPY RETELLING OF THE PS1 CLASSIC IN A MODERN GAMING LANGUAGE. Another enjoyable reimagining for the Resident Evil series that nails the action but lacks depth. 4/5

Press Square wrote:Resident Evil 3 had the potential to better its classic predecessor, but a disappointing amount of cut content and the let down that is Nemesis hold it back from greatness. It's still an experience very much worth revisiting, with Raccoon City and the hospital receiving a lot of love and attention, however, it only makes us question what could have been that little bit more. 7/10

Gamespot wrote:As a remake, Resident Evil 3 not only falls short of honoring its source, but it also doesn't quite stick the landing as a standalone horror experience. Even without taking into account the original game, or its predecessor, RE3 struggles to keep up with its pace amid a clashing of elements from survival horror and standard action. While it has a strong start and gives its principal villain some great moments, this truncated retelling of the concluding game from the original Resident Evil trilogy doesn't do it proper justice. 6/10

PC Gamer Magazine wrote:Both the Nemesis and Raccoon City are massively underused in this disappointing step back for the series. 58%

VG24/7 wrote:It’s still worth playing, but Resident Evil 3 Remake is a step backwards for Capcom, coming off the back of one of the best games of last year. It’s gorgeous to look at, the jump scares will get you, and it’s like stepping into a comfy pair of slippers. But even though your feet are cosy, it never feels like home. 3/5

Eurogamer wrote:The source material is - and I think this is the perceived wisdom - simply not as good as the original Resident Evil 2. But I can't shake the feeling the Resident Evil 3 remake was rushed - as its original was. Now that's an unfortunate parallel.

Capcom proves once again that, when it comes to modern horror, it's the master. Resident Evil 3 is testament to the fact that a good horror game needs to be more than just scary, offering skilful urban level design, stunning visuals, a formidable foe – and lots and lots of zombies. If you liked the Resident Evil 2 remake then you're going to love Resident Evil 3.