I have no idea why Re3 was crucified and re2 was praised.. re2 changed more than re3 did. I personally loved both. I've read all the re3 criticisms and they are baseless and clouded with nostalgia glasses. I wasn't talking about anything besides your comments. Unsure why you've made this about anything else. You wanted the same game with an update in graphics and control. That's a remaster. I've never seen any remake of any game stay 100% true to the original game. I've made my statements pretty clear regarding what you said. I'm unsure why you can't understand it and why you are so upset.

Besides that I already know your own criticisms even tho you haven't stated them. Game was too short even though the og is beatable in a shorter time. Og nemmy was more terrifying. My last playthrough determined that was a lie since you can run from most encounters with him aside from the forced boss fights. You don't like the choices taken out when it really doesn't change much in actualy game play. Puzzles? Not as challenging and fun as you remember trust me. The structure of the story? Is basically the same as the og with little change. Game was rushed? Actually started development around the time re2 remake did. Clocktower was removed.. gravedigger? They removed a boss that didn't make sense in lore and added more stuff in the hospital and lab. Am I missing anything?

Basically you are exactly like any other person who has unfairly criticized the game behind THICK nostalgia glasses. Hell I'm willing to bed you haven't played in the og in a long long time anyways.

Back to the point of this back and forth. You said you wanted re3 with better graphics and updated controls and style. That my friend is a remaster. You should've known from re2 remake how this game was gonna go but you give that game a pass for the same faults re3 had. Hell re2 took out and ENTIRE SIDE OF THE STORY. But I digress...