What Would A "Faithful" Resident Evil Adaptation Actually Look Like?

thegamer.com:

I don’t love Netflix’s Resident Evil series. It tries too hard to be current in a way that already feels dated, there isn’t quite enough tissue to the games for my taste, and its unwillingness to explore the thematic consequences of changing Wesker’s race disappoints me. All that being said, I stand by the claim that I and many other reviewers made - this is the most faithful Resident Evil adaptation yet. Not only does it go to some lengths to not contradict the lore, but it generally operates within the same narrative and thematic bounds as the core series. Its story and characters are as Resident Evil as any of the games, yet the common refrain I’m seeing from fans online is exactly the opposite. If you think the show is some kind of betrayal of Resident Evil, I have to ask: what do you think Resident Evil is? What makes an adaptation faithful to the source material, and what exactly do you expect from a Resident Evil show?

It seems to me that a lot of people think of fidelity in very narrow terms. When they assess whether or not an adaptation is faithful to the original story, they’re only really concerned with the plot. This would explain why so many are automatically opposed to Netflix’s Resident Evil, which introduces new characters to the series and tells a completely original story. Leon, Claire, Chris, and Jill aren’t part of the story and it isn’t a retelling of the plot of the games, so it isn’t faithful to the source material. A lot of people seem to expect adaptations to directly adapt from the source, and any creative liberties or deviations from the road laid out should be considered an insult to the original.

The problem is that that ideal of what an adaptation should be doesn’t exist, and if it did, it