A thought on remakes/reboots.

[Pink Gregory]

Just would like to hear some views.

Now, as many people can attest to, some sequels/remakes/reboots get hilarous amounts of hatred, genuine hatred, even for having the audacity to exist.

Then I wonder, do the old-time fans (who hate) even WANT to like it?

I have just never honestly understood it, and this is why:

No one is taking the 'perfect' original away.

I'm actually referring to X-Com, but this can apply to, well, anything.

I've seen a lot of talk crying 'dumbing down' and things, but, really? Making a game more accessible is a bad thing?

Gaming is an industry like any other, using an IP to appeal to only the fans of the original would be a terrible idea.

So yeah, ill-thought out thoughts and whatnot.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I don't have a problem with all reboots. If an IP is stagnating, you should either put it to rest, or do what you can to get it back in gear. For X-Com it makes sense because, where was that series going otherwise?

What bugs me, is when a remake is completely unneeded or has fuck all to do with the original.

A good example of the later would be Syndicate. They turned a strategy game into an FPS, which on it's own isn't a bad thing. If they had done an invert of Halo Wars and used the game to expanded on the universe, it would have been fine. But what you ended up with was a mediocore FPS that could have been a different IP all together.

For an unnecessary remake, look at DMC. The third game was great, then the 4th took a dip in quality. Instead of making a proper sequel that fixed things they went with "Fuck it, lets change EVERYTHING". Which is sounds really brain dead.

 

[MajorTomServo]

I'm cool with enhanced ports. Take an old game, clean up the graphics a bit, give us some control options (options being the key word), and if you're feeling generous, maybe a bonus dungeon or something. Maybe even slap two games of the same series together. Bam, all my money.

Who wouldn't love Fallout 1 and 2 on 3DS?


Good examples would be REmake, Starfox 64, or Kirby Superstar Ultra.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I have no problem with it when devs are honest about what they changed, sadly they never are simply because they want everyone to buy and then be appalled.

But you can go one worse and use the brand recognition to push some shit that isn't even related, odd how we come back to X-COM again.

 

[krazykidd]

Honestly , i don't think reboots should exist . What a reboot basically means is : we don't know where togo next with our franchise , we know are franchise makes money because of it's name , and we are too lazy to find something good to do so we will start from the begining . That's not to say reboots aren't good sometimes but it reeks of lazy corperation influence . I rather the let sleeping dogs lie , and make a new IP , but that's just me .

 

[Yokillernick]

Honestly , i don't think reboots should exist . What a reboot basically means is : we don't know where togo next with our franchise , we know are franchise makes money because of it's name , and we are too lazy to find something good to do so we will start from the begining . That's not to say reboots aren't good sometimes but it reeks of lazy corperation influence . I rather the let sleeping dogs lie , and make a new IP , but that's just me .

True I agree with the Sleeping Dogs bit but coming up with new IPs is hard as something new doesn't always mean guaranteed success.

OT: I actually like the XCOM remake. It seems a lot simpler to play than XCOM Apocalypse and it was a good thing that they rebooted this series for 2 reasons. 1. The last TBS XCOM was released in 1999 so they had to make something new and it worked. 2. There are far too few TBS games any more as the gaming industry is getting swallowed up by military shooters, meaning that for me this new XCOM on top of being an improvement on the old Apocalypse, some might disagree, it also felt like something fresh as all I played this year were military shooter, some RPG and Sleeping Dogs, of which only Sleeping Dogs felt somewhat original.

So yes, reboots are good if the series hasn't progressed for some time, but I'm probably going to regret that in 2079 when the Call of Duty series gets rebooted into super HD 3D Graphics!

 

[AD-Stu]

Depends entirely on how it's done for me.

If it's done because there's something new to bring to the franchise then great. If it's done just to cash in and takes a great big dump on the franchise, then not so great.

Personally, the ones I don't understand are the current Need For Speed 'reboots' - Hot Pursuit, and the Most Wanted one that's on its way. Seriously, why do those games exist?!? They'd sell about the same if they had those titles or completely different ones because it's the Need For Speed brand that's the big important one, not the subtitles...

 

[an annoyed writer]

If they're done well, I don't mind them at all. I happily own both Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes (which I believe to be superior to the original PS1 version in nearly every sense) and Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary, which is incredibly fun in online Co-op. A remake that's got nothing to do with the source material, or does a sub-par job of updating the original to modern standards is annoying though.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Originality doesn't necessarily equal good. So as long as the reboot/remake is good then sure why not.

The problem comes when it's just a quick cash in on peoples nostalgia, selling an inferior product where the brand is the only selling point.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Who wouldn't love Fallout 1 and 2 on 3DS?

I want that now: who do I throw my wallet at?

---

Good games are good games no matter where they came from. I think in another thread not too long ago I offhandedly asked if fans of Fallout 1 and 2 are pissed off at Fallout 3, not just for being FPS instead of isometric but because it takes place in DC. I thought I had a point in there but I forgot what it was meant to be so, yeah...good games are good no matter where they came from just like bad games are bad no matter where they came from.

 

[Judgment90]

if it was a remake of a game that is difficult to obtain, such as obscure PS1 RPGs, then i would say yes.

 

[Ron Alphafight]

Are we talking remakes or ports? It may just be my own definition of each word, but I think of remakes more like movie remakes (total recall as an example) and ports are just old games made available on new consoles, with maybe a graphical overhaul or a new gimmick (like ocarina of time). I really don't have a problem with either, but in order for me to buy a remake they need to be different enough from the original to warrant it being made. I don't buy ports. I see them more as a money grab.

 

[Andy Shandy]

I like a remake, ports, etc, especially if it's a game from a while ago. For example, the HD port they did for Sonic Adventure 2. Unfortunately for me, my Dreamcast died a while back, and my Gamecube copy of the game was scratched like hell (due to overuse) and eventually gave up. Having it available on a console that I use a lot now is a big plus for me.

 

[lord.jeff]

I never understood the idea of judging a game by what's in it's title, a good game is a good game original, remake, reboot or sequel shouldn't change that fact.

 

[jackinmydaniels]

I don't mind reboots if they are necessary or well done. Giving life to an old franchise is perfectly fine in my book if you have good ideas and a good team behind them. But when you are too afraid to actually make a new IP so you slap an old name onto your completely different game then we have a problem.

 

[Tanis]

I think (one of) the best remakes I've ever played was 'Klonoa' for the Wii.

The original, for the PS1, was a lovely gem from that era and its sequel is a perfect example of how equals should be made.
Even the GBA games, which used some levels from the Wonderson, were pretty damn good.

Anyways...

The Wii-make of Klonoa was a graphical/audio remake with improved controls and some extra content that ADDED to the game.

 

[Windcaler]

Just would like to hear some views.

Now, as many people can attest to, some sequels/remakes/reboots get hilarous amounts of hatred, genuine hatred, even for having the audacity to exist.

Then I wonder, do the old-time fans (who hate) even WANT to like it?

I have just never honestly understood it, and this is why:

No one is taking the 'perfect' original away.

I'm actually referring to X-Com, but this can apply to, well, anything.

I've seen a lot of talk crying 'dumbing down' and things, but, really? Making a game more accessible is a bad thing?

Gaming is an industry like any other, using an IP to appeal to only the fans of the original would be a terrible idea.

So yeah, ill-thought out thoughts and whatnot.

Why do remakes usually happen? Answer: Because the fans want them to. Both Dota2 and XCOM are cases where fans wanted a new game on a new engine but they pretty much wanted the same game. For Dota2 (as I understand I never played the original Dota)that happened, for XCOM not so much. Without fan influence these games wouldnt get made. So lets keep that in mind

Second point. How many game franchises have we seen that reinvented itself to draw in more consumers? Answer: More then I care to count. These games are pretty much despised by fans overall and some XCOM fans feel thats what happened to the latest XCOM remake (Im not so extreme with that opinion but I do feel a bit alienated that the game changed so much)

Classic Xcom is not nor was it ever a game that was made for everyone. Tactical turn based strategy games were a niche market (I would argue theyre still a niche market), much like Dark souls or the thief series are niche games. Now consider the definition of niche "a distinct segment of a market."

Alright so lets put that together. Classic XCOM was a niche game, fans who enjoyed it wanted a new one, and then Firaxis reinvented the series to appeal to a wider audience. What if this was another classic or just popular game, say Call of Duty or World of Warcraft? Wouldnt you be at least a little annoyed if the game you loved suddenly changed in ways you didnt agree with or in my case made it nearly unrecognizable?

If this was a new IP I would be kinder to it but the fact is XCOM enemy unknown is trying to be XCOM Enemy unknown (the 1993 one) and Im sorry but its not. I wanted to like it, I wanted to have the great look and strategy elements of classic XCOM back without having to run DOSBOX to run it but that just didnt happen. The newest XCOM does some interesting things and I wont call it a bad game but what I will not do is call it a true remake of XCOM. Im sorry but the indie title Xenonaughts is more of an XCOM remake then this latest XCOM