Could you elaborate on this? I'm always up for a rant dunking on crappy reboots.
I'm just saying, Capcom put a strong emphasis in their marketing on how nu-Jill is "strong character", so she can't wear a skirt anymore because that's "sexualizing". In reality, it's because of scenes like this:
You can't see a woman's underwear in a horror game because of some ethics department shit, I really don't know...
I'm pointing this out because scenes like that were not in the original game. Jill was an attractive woman in a skimpy outfit, but there were no sexy scenes involving her or cutscenes showcasing her butt, she just looked good and people loved pretty girls. Capcom could have saved themselves the trouble and just removed all the butt scenes if they really cared so much about "objectification."
Remake, on the other hand, features multiple scenes of Jill being orally raped or strangled with tentacles.
Not to kinkshame anybody here, but this was clearly meant as a fetish fuel showing Jill's helplessness and vulnerability to encourage the (male) player to protect her. Not my words,
this is what the (male) game designers, like those who were in charge of the Tomb Raider reboot, believe.
^But they're not denying the fact they want gamers to find the character attractive, neither is RE3R. While everybody has their prefernces, nu Jill was still designed so an average (male) game would find her desirable (although they definitely made her look more masculine but it's debatable whether or not Capcom has a "feminist" agenda).
The opening scene intentionally places emphasis on her face and cleavage, there's definitely an erotic element here.
And here:
Not to mention the lewd mods and unlockable models where you can get closeups of her boobs...
Sexualization doesn't imply a character will be appealing to everybody. Abigail from The Last of Us 2 has exaggerated masculine proportions, but there're nudity and sex scenes involving her because this is the type of women the director wanted to be seen as sexual.
Sexualization is not dehumazing to a character because game characters aren't real and they're meant to be objectified by definition. I personally find it more cathartic getting to fight a huge monster while playing as an attractive woman, rather than a strong heavily armed man. After all, it was the beauty that killed the beast...
And this is what people don't get about the OG RE3, it was a very 90s female power fantasy - you can kick ass while looking hot, no questions asked. But we're in 2020s, and what is the biggest fear for women the media constantly perpetuates now?
And this is my actual problem with the remake, besides the cut content, it's the garbage writing. Remake is no longer subtitled "Nemesis" because Nemesis is barely relevant when it comes to Jill's character. Instead the conflict is now between Jill and Nikolai, her real "Nemesis", who is now a raging misogynist she has to "prove" herself to Brie Larson-style. I admit, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but ask yourself what was the point to change the character so much? They wanted to give her a human enemy so Jill could grow as person by challenging him, a sexist man who underestimates her and puts her down for being emotional (scene when she couldn't kill an infected man), yet the way for Jill to get stronger is by having multiple men die to protect her (once again, this wasn't in the original). I had the exact same problem with Tomb Raider's reboot where Lara is established as "strong real woman" who gets gud at killing armies of heavily armed men in five minutes, yet she kept failing at actually saving anybody there.
Again, not saying anything about "agenda" but they also had Carlos talking about how he respects Jill's personal space (He's not like other men, get it?) because a man flirting with a woman is now "problematic". I get it that Carlos' lines in the original were a little cringey but it suited his cocky attitude and he never harassed Jill for her attention nor she had to rely on him, he was always there only when she needed him the most.
Jill's motivation in the remake is no longer to escape the city by defeaing a giant monster, she now needs to find the vaccine to save it from destruction and SHE FAILS. She also needs viable evidence against the Umbrella and when she has a perfect opportunity to take Nikolai, a perfect witness, into custody - SHE LEAVES HIM BEHIND LIKE A STUPID BITCH because "this is personal now, you killed a man who was like a father to me for 5 minutes" and all that shit. And considering Nikolai canonically survived, SHE FAILED AGAIN.
This is the kind of "strong female character" writing I'm sick of. Gone are the times when Lara Croft only played for sport and Jill Valentine fought alongside men, not against them. I'm only bringing this up because the whole "Character less sexy = She's a real woman now" is hypocrisy, it's just a different kind of marketing. There's nothing wrong with liking vulnerable characters but I'm tired of Neil Cuckmann's "real" women wih mental or daddy issues who say "Fuck" all the time. I want my fun escapism back.
edit: I wrote too much, but I hope I made myself clear, more or less. Not saying OG RE3 is a masterpiece but it wasn't something to be taken too seriously. I'm tired of games trying to be "deep" because TLOU did that.
I forgot to mention, during the clock tower fight Nemesis can jump on top of Jill and that looks like he's biting (?) her boobs. Realistically, with teeth like that he should have finished her off instantly... This game is surprisingly light on gore. Original had some pretty brutal death scenes. They also removed dismemberment.
