Resident evil's biggest flaws

Wasn't Brad killed by Nemesis before the start of RE2?

Anyway, there are a lot of flaws in the timeline. I don't know which one is the my favorite/the biggest. I will think about it.

Mcghie wrote:

Brad was killed by the nemisis yes, but RE3 seems like it is just behid RE2, like the office marvin is in, there is the blood
trail but no marvin, Although in some RE3 copies marvin is lying there but dead.

Actually it's RE2 that begins at the time RE3 is halfway through. In RE3 Jill only presumes Marvin is dead when he's only passed out but bleeding like hell. Marvin propably just thought Leon was the only one left as the other people hadn't come back. Nemesis kills Brad, Leon or Claire found him zombified at the RPD some time later.

The boards and other stuff is just a design thing but that is the only thing I find to be plot hole. That and the bathrooms that just aren't there.

yeah the biggest time line flaws I found so far is the stuff with brad the helicopter guy particularly the way nemesis seems to totally mangle him but when you fight him in RE2 he seems to be in 1 piece and just a normal zombie. RE2 can only take place after RE3 as Brad wouldnt be dead yet so who boarded up the police station is a mystery UNLESS the last remaining police officers started boarding up the police station and then the barriers were destroyed by nemesis or rampaging zombies after jill left and before Leon + Claire reached the station, although clearly there was still at least 1 officer (besides marvin) still in the building to shoot down that helicopter at the start of the B game of RE2. Also thinking about it there arent any toilets in the police station that I can remember never thought of that, I also found it funny that you find grenade rounds in the toilet on the thing that takes you to the underground laboratory near the end of the game,although thats not it a flaw its just weird

The biggest overall flaw with RE games I played is definitely the voice acting in RE1 which even sounded stupid back in 1996 as I can remember laughing at it then, but I do think it adds an unintetional comedy level to the game which in a way made it more fun for me and the game was still tense/scary even despite that.

The voice acting wasn't a flaw in RE1. It was great. It wouldn't be the same without the awesome dialogue and voice acting.

Yeah dont get me wrong I love the shitty voice acting and think it adds something to the game but from the point of view of the people who made it its certainly a flaw as they were trying to create a creepy atmosphere (which there still is to be fair) but ruined it by making the characters/dialogue unintentionally funny, which makes the game less dark overall and maybe less effective. the FMV's at the start and end are really funny too they look like a really really bad student horror B movie, which im sure wasnt intentional and again makes the game less scary overall, but personaly I am glad they are like that

Just to clarify things a bit:
September 28th, night - RE3 begins. Jill and Carlos find their way to the clock tower on this day. Jill battles the Nemesis, but falls unconscious afterward for at least 24 hours due to being infected with the T-virus.
September 29th, night - Events of RE2, ending on the morning of October 1st.
October 1st, night - Jill awakens and Carlos goes to the hospital for the T-vaccine. We all know of what happens after that, so I'll just cut the story short and say that RE3 finally ends on the morning of October 2nd when Jill and Carlos escape Raccoon City via helicopter.

So the first half of RE3 begins before RE2 and the second half begins after RE2. Everybody understand?

Wesker=topgunvalkilmer wrote:

yeah the biggest time line flaws I found so far is the stuff with brad the helicopter guy particularly the way nemesis seems to totally mangle him but when you fight him in RE2 he seems to be in 1 piece and just a normal zombie.

Brad wasn't mangled, the Nemesis punched its tentacle through his mouth and out the back of his head. His body was still intact (in addition to being totally missing when Jill emerged from the station after doing her business), so there's nothing inconsistent about a zombified Brad walking around at the start of RE2.

As far as the boarded up police station, I feel it's just a cop out by Capcom. They could have just as easily left the doors unboarded and still made the doors impassable by having Jill comment something like "It's locked and I don't know where the key is" or "I don't have time to check this area" when you try to go through them. Equally, there was no reason to block that subterranean path inside the courtyard with steel girders or whatever when you consider that it didn't lead outside the police station, but I figure that was done because they wanted you to fight Nemesis in a close area.

The RE2/RE3 inconsistency that bugs me the most is the total lack of a hole in the wall of the downstairs hallway in RE2 when the Nemesis jumped through said wall in RE3 just 24 hours earlier.

The dates are revealed in-game. At the start of RE3, Jill narrates "September 28th. Daylight. The monsters have overtaken the city." Then inside the police station you can examine a a bulletin board with a memo on it, which Jill notes as having "tomorrow's date" (September 29th) on it. During RE2, you can examine this very same bulletin board which Claire or Leon will note as having "today's date" on it. And when Jill wakes up in the church after the Nemesis battle, she again narrates "October 1st. I awoke to the sound of falling rain. I can't believe I'm still alive."

Why is Krauser s vulnerable to knives but tough when it comes to firearms?

Why do they always stress in the movies and cutscenes that zombies can only be killed by being shot in the head, but in the gameplay, a few shots to the stomach does the job?

not really a "flaw" but I definetly remember thinking it was weird the way the plot developed in RE1 the first time I played it and I still find it a bit weird. Obviously because the japanese game was called "Biohazard" or whatever they kind of knew to expect how the plot would end up, but I distinctly remember when first playing the game expecting I would end up battling more of a supernatural type force like a dracula or some shit, because of the setting in the spooky castle with zombies etc and for some reason the title "resident evil" just seemed to change the expectation of what the game was going to be about like something more spooky or something. I dunno if anybody else ever got this but I definetly did and its funny how a title change or just a different way of presenting something changes your expectations of what its about, compared to how it was presented in japan

Wesker=topgunvalkilmer wrote:

not really a "flaw" but I definetly remember thinking it was weird the way the plot developed in RE1 the first time I played it and I still find it a bit weird. Obviously because the japanese game was called "Biohazard" or whatever they kind of knew to expect how the plot would end up, but I distinctly remember when first playing the game expecting I would end up battling more of a supernatural type force like a dracula or some shit, because of the setting in the spooky castle with zombies etc and for some reason the title "resident evil" just seemed to change the expectation of what the game was going to be about like something more spooky or something. I dunno if anybody else ever got this but I definetly did and its funny how a title change or just a different way of presenting something changes your expectations of what its about, compared to how it was presented in japan

Funny thing, Resident Evil was originally supposed to be about the supernatural and stuff like that rather than a biohazard. You can read my thread detailing this if you're interested: [link]

Mcghie wrote:

@Monster Mash. That is because the common way to kill a zombie is by rendering it's brain inactive
It's that way in every zombie film.

In Return of the Living Dead, they put a pick axe in the head of one and it didn't die. Then they cut its head, arms, and legs off, but still didn't die. Hell, its dismembered arm by itself even attacked a guy later in the movie!

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

@Monster Mash. That is because the common way to kill a zombie is by rendering it's brain inactive
It's that way in every zombie film.

In Return of the Living Dead, they put a pick axe in the head of one and it didn't die. Then they cut its head, arms, and legs off, but still didn't die. Hell, its dismembered arm by itself even attacked a guy later in the movie!

Isn't the Living Dead series a parody of itself anyway? At least so I've heard. Totally destroying the corpse isn't the most common way, though.

Mcghie wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

@Monster Mash. That is because the common way to kill a zombie is by rendering it's brain inactive
It's that way in every zombie film.

In Return of the Living Dead, they put a pick axe in the head of one and it didn't die. Then they cut its head, arms, and legs off, but still didn't die. Hell, its dismembered arm by itself even attacked a guy later in the movie!

Isn't the Living Dead series a parody of itself anyway? At least so I've heard. Totally destroying the corpse isn't the most common way, though.

Is that not the Evil Dead series ?

@GL - well except from that example but its a general guidline to killing a zombie by shotting them in the head or
destroying the brain.

The only RE game where they did that kinda right was REmake. You had to headshot or burn them, otherwise they didn't die.

Mcghie wrote:

ThomVD wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

@Monster Mash. That is because the common way to kill a zombie is by rendering it's brain inactive
It's that way in every zombie film.

In Return of the Living Dead, they put a pick axe in the head of one and it didn't die. Then they cut its head, arms, and legs off, but still didn't die. Hell, its dismembered arm by itself even attacked a guy later in the movie!

Isn't the Living Dead series a parody of itself anyway? At least so I've heard. Totally destroying the corpse isn't the most common way, though.

Is that not the Evil Dead series ?

@GL - well except from that example but its a general guidline to killing a zombie by shotting them in the head or
destroying the brain.

The only RE game where they did that kinda right was REmake. You had to headshot or burn them, otherwise they didn't die.

I did like that as a extra
Felt like you were taking "realistic" measures and plus was pretty fun seeing a zombie go up in flames.

I loved it too. I remember the first crimson head. I really didn't expect that and I missed the file so at first I didn't know how to prevent it. When I finally found out, there were already like five of them . Good memories.

Mcghie wrote:

lol, that is the exact same as I did.
I literally nearly fell of my seat when the zombie sprung up, then start chasing me.
Really caught me off guard and made me fell less safe with zombies.

I was so disappointed that RE0 didn't have crimsons.

Mcghie wrote:

ThomVD wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

ThomVD wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

@Monster Mash. That is because the common way to kill a zombie is by rendering it's brain inactive
It's that way in every zombie film.

In Return of the Living Dead, they put a pick axe in the head of one and it didn't die. Then they cut its head, arms, and legs off, but still didn't die. Hell, its dismembered arm by itself even attacked a guy later in the movie!

Isn't the Living Dead series a parody of itself anyway? At least so I've heard. Totally destroying the corpse isn't the most common way, though.

Is that not the Evil Dead series ?

@GL - well except from that example but its a general guidline to killing a zombie by shotting them in the head or
destroying the brain.

The only RE game where they did that kinda right was REmake. You had to headshot or burn them, otherwise they didn't die.

I did like that as a extra
Felt like you were taking "realistic" measures and plus was pretty fun seeing a zombie go up in flames.

I loved it too. I remember the first crimson head. I really didn't expect that and I missed the file so at first I didn't know how to prevent it. When I finally found out, there were already like five of them . Good memories.

lol, that is the exact same as I did.
I literally nearly fell of my seat when the zombie sprung up, then start chasing me.
Really caught me off guard and made me fell less safe with zombies.

Quote pyramid!

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

ThomVD wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

ThomVD wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mcghie wrote:

@Monster Mash. That is because the common way to kill a zombie is by rendering it's brain inactive
It's that way in every zombie film.

In Return of the Living Dead, they put a pick axe in the head of one and it didn't die. Then they cut its head, arms, and legs off, but still didn't die. Hell, its dismembered arm by itself even attacked a guy later in the movie!

Isn't the Living Dead series a parody of itself anyway? At least so I've heard. Totally destroying the corpse isn't the most common way, though.

Is that not the Evil Dead series ?

@GL - well except from that example but its a general guidline to killing a zombie by shotting them in the head or
destroying the brain.

The only RE game where they did that kinda right was REmake. You had to headshot or burn them, otherwise they didn't die.

I did like that as a extra
Felt like you were taking "realistic" measures and plus was pretty fun seeing a zombie go up in flames.

I loved it too. I remember the first crimson head. I really didn't expect that and I missed the file so at first I didn't know how to prevent it. When I finally found out, there were already like five of them . Good memories.

lol, that is the exact same as I did.
I literally nearly fell of my seat when the zombie sprung up, then start chasing me.
Really caught me off guard and made me fell less safe with zombies.

Quote pyramid!

Woo!