>>717522401
>what's the verdict on the RE2 remake?
Utter shit DEmake, that was a wet slap in the faces of all RE fans that waited nearly 20 years for the RE2 and 3 to get THE REmake 1 (2002) treatment.
Literally a "we want TLOU audiences! :^)" meme, with all the modern cancers. If you see someone praise this garbage, while shitting on the equally shit RE3R, then you're witnessing the Crapcom brainwashing in play.
> I never played the PS1 original, is this a good way to experience the game?
No. It's a completely different title, that only wears a cheap Chink RE2 cosplay set to improve the sales.
Classic RE1-3 are timeless masterpieces that still hold up.
Unless you only care about aimless zombie running & gunning (that you see in every MODERN slop), and absolutely despise slow-burn horror adventuring that revolves around exploration, problem solving, preparing for journeys and surprises... etc, then you should by all means play them. In the release order!
And no, the 2002 Remake for #1, no matter how cool and relatively faithful to OG, is not a replacement for the 1996 RE1 either. On the contrary: it assumes that you're already a veteran RE player.
You can easily emulate the PS1 classics on any wormbox made since Windows 2000 days, using Duckstation. The Gamecube port is also darn good choice.
GOG recently re-released the old PC ports with some compatibility fixes as well, so if you prefer native versions or care about some sob-sob "legality", then those are a fine way to get started.
Protip:
Classic survival horror games are rather short games, but they're meant to be replayed multiple times. RE2 takes this a step further with its four different campaigns (two A and B routes) and plethora of unlockables.