Nintendo gets HD remakes

[Casual Shinji]

Yeah, Nintendo doesn't do that at all!

Especially not with Mario or anything, oh no.

He was talking about HD-remakes specifically, don't just quote him out of context

I wouldn't if his post had any context beyond 'Nintendo rules, Sony and Microsoft drool... just cuz'.

 

[Tupolev]

You sure the weapons were rebalanced? As I understood it, the game was left entirely untouched, barring a graphical update. I even played it, myself, and weapons seemed to work identical to the original version(which made me happy because I love pistols and the original Halo is the only one where pistols are worth a damn). Though I agree in defense of Halo Anniversary. It ran really well and the updated graphics were gorgeous, in my book.

I think the post was referring to the Multiplayer, as the campaign is mechanically extremely close to the original; there are some very slight differences, but they're oversights and quirks in the port's development, not significant intentional differences.

But maybe not, because defending the multiplayer like that seems ridiculous. CEA's Reach MP has atrocious balancing compared with the original game. They basically threw a rough hitscan approximation of the CE pistol into what was otherwise more or less the default Reach sandbox. The result isn't a bad game, but it doesn't remotely stack up to the original (even without factoring in additional issues like how awkward the pseudo-CE'd controls are in Reach).

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Well yeah it's a cheap way of cashing in on an old IP. Sometimes they happen to be good.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

While most other companies are perfectly okay with releasing the same game in three-year intervals, Nintendo is willing to put in some effort.

Yeah, Nintendo doesn't do that at all!

Especially not with Mario or anything, oh no.

Play 3D World, then tell me about Nintendo phoning it in.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Did you seriously call Halo Anniversary a bad remake? It offered HD, it offered new visuals, kept the same exact gameplay and it offered the ability to play with the same old visuals. The only problem really was the multiplayer but the singleplayer was the best example of a good remake by keeping everything of the old and adding new optional stuff.

Wind Waker HD was visually terrible with all that bloom, the option to switch it off in the press of a button would be nice, no?

If a remake doesnt let you play the game as it was originally I dont really think that its a good remake, its cool to have new stuff but keep all that optional in case the player wants the original experience (wich one is better is subjective)

If the game is exactly the same, just with better graphics, then what is the point of making it? You can literally play the original Halo on the Xbox 360, so why would you ever need to play the same game, just on a different cartridge?

What Nintendo does is they update the game, fix some of the broken aspects (like the Triforce hunt), and add new, useful things. An HD remake should not have its worth measured in polygons.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

And what bothers me so much is that these remakes don't add anything.

I have not played my copy of WindWaker HD yet, but if I remember reading correctly, they added a higher difficulty setting. This is something every Zelda game desperately needs. I would consider that "adding something". I really hope we get another version of Twilight Princess with this.

Did you read the rest of my article?

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Yeah, Nintendo doesn't do that at all!

Especially not with Mario or anything, oh no.

He was talking about HD-remakes specifically, don't just quote him out of context

I wouldn't if his post had any context beyond 'Nintendo rules, Sony and Microsoft drool... just cuz'.

The whole reason I wrote this in the first place was because of the Tomb Raider rerelease they're planning. And I specifically mentioned that Sony was better than some and that I wasn't talking about just the Big 3.

And yes, I do like Nintendo more. Perhaps, instead of writing me off as a blind Nintendo fanboy, you should consider the reasons why I prefer systems with unnecessary gimmicks and lack of third-party support.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Play 3D World, then tell me about Nintendo phoning it in.

Well that's all very subjective, isn't it.

Because you could claim they're just phoning it in by using the same IP over, and over, and over again.

 

[Tupolev]

If the game is exactly the same, just with better graphics, then what is the point of making it? You can literally play the original Halo on the Xbox 360, so why would you ever need to play the same game, just on a different cartridge?

Because 4:3 aspect ratio, the game just plain doesn't visually work as well with most flat panels as with a CRT, framerate problems, etc...

There's something to be said for updating a game to enjoy the capabilities of current technology and not suck on modern setups. Not that I think CEA does a particularly good job of this, I'd rather play the original on my oXbox/CRT almost any day of the week, but it's not a worthless goal.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The whole reason I wrote this in the first place was because of the Tomb Raider rerelease they're planning. And I specifically mentioned that Sony was better than some and that I wasn't talking about just the Big 3.

Yet you make it a point that because Square Enix is retailing the next gen Tomb Raider upgrade at full price, that all HD remakes apart from Nintendo's are stupid. Allowing them to get away with it.

As has already been said, HD "remakes" aren't full blown remakes á la REmake or Twin Snakes, they're simply a transference of older popular games to current systems, since games unfortunately have expiration dates. It's really no different from when VHS went to DVD, and DVD went to Blu-Ray. It's an HD remake; a game remade to fit the high definition standard. That's all. And it was never marketed as anything more.

And yes, I do like Nintendo more. Perhaps, instead of writing me off as a blind Nintendo fanboy, you should consider the reasons why I prefer systems with unnecessary gimmicks and lack of third-party support.

Why would I care what you prefer? Everyone can like whatever they want.

 

[josemlopes]

Did you seriously call Halo Anniversary a bad remake? It offered HD, it offered new visuals, kept the same exact gameplay and it offered the ability to play with the same old visuals. The only problem really was the multiplayer but the singleplayer was the best example of a good remake by keeping everything of the old and adding new optional stuff.

Wind Waker HD was visually terrible with all that bloom, the option to switch it off in the press of a button would be nice, no?

If a remake doesnt let you play the game as it was originally I dont really think that its a good remake, its cool to have new stuff but keep all that optional in case the player wants the original experience (wich one is better is subjective)

If the game is exactly the same, just with better graphics, then what is the point of making it? You can literally play the original Halo on the Xbox 360, so why would you ever need to play the same game, just on a different cartridge?

What Nintendo does is they update the game, fix some of the broken aspects (like the Triforce hunt), and add new, useful things. An HD remake should not have its worth measured in polygons.

Like it was already said the game doesnt seem to work that well on a 360 and try playing any game made for an SDTV on an HDTV, its shit that hurts the eyes.

Thats why you barely see HD remakes/re-releases on the PC, you can actually play old games just fine (with some exceptions that are more about making the game more accessible like Duke Nukem 3D with the GOG release and the Steam release).

Also, Tomb Raider isnt a remake or even a re-release, its a port of a reboot (also different from a remake). Lara Croft: Tomb Raider Anniversary was a remake of the original.

And fuck yeah the remake has to at least let the player play it like it was back then if he wants to, the game can still have all those new/different things but make them optional, dont just force them on the player. What if I liked the original just fine and just because the developer prefers it differently then it has to be different?

I really dont see how you can defend Nintendo that much when they are the ones to offer the less for more.

 

[elvor0]

I actually liked Final Fantasy's two remakes.

The game looked beautiful, the soundtrack was amazing, and the FMVs were breath-taking, especially that one near the end of 2 (which didn't make me cry).

Do I like the game?

No, they're two wastes of time spotted with a few good moments. I wanted to be able to play as Yuna in the remakes; that's pretty much what everyone wanted. That, and these two versions are the only ones available on the VITA, which is handheld. And Okami, which was also a really good remake, perhaps by virtue of being on the VITA.

the console it's ported on can make a huge difference, to both audience, and how the game generally works.

X and X-2 HD? Why would you play as Yuna in X? This is the first time I've ever heard that sentiment. It would make no sense, you'd have to hack out the opening sections in Zanarkand, on the boat, right up until you get to Yuna on Besaid. It was Tidus and Yunas story to be sure, but Tidus was the PoV character. Which regardless of if you like him as a character, he serves his purpose extremely well.

Spoiled kid with daddy issues having to grow up and continue his fathers legacy, face who he is, and also serves as an audience surrogate without the player character seeming like an idiot who doesn't know anything about the world he lives in, or having to rely on the damn amnesia trope.

It's not like they've just straight ported it to the PS3 either. They redid the character models, cleaned up the UI, changed a few bits, added some extra stuff(sort of, if you were Europe you would've gotten them in the original for X, but the extra stuff in X-2 was Japan exclusive), and remixed the music, either just remixed it or they've had it recorded by a full orchestra. The new music that I've heard sounds great.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

If the game is exactly the same, just with better graphics, then what is the point of making it? You can literally play the original Halo on the Xbox 360, so why would you ever need to play the same game, just on a different cartridge?

Because 4:3 aspect ratio, the game just plain doesn't visually work as well with most flat panels as with a CRT, framerate problems, etc...

There's something to be said for updating a game to enjoy the capabilities of current technology and not suck on modern setups. Not that I think CEA does a particularly good job of this, I'd rather play the original on my oXbox/CRT almost any day of the week, but it's not a worthless goal.

Yes, except the whole point of backwards compatibility is that you're supposed to be able to play the games correctly. Kind of defeats the purpose if you have to buy a new one to play it right.

 

[Something Amyss]

And yes, I do like Nintendo more. Perhaps, instead of writing me off as a blind Nintendo fanboy, you should consider the reasons why I prefer systems with unnecessary gimmicks and lack of third-party support.

What if his consideration comes to the conclusion that you're a "blind Nintendo fanboy?"

Seriously, nobody here can know what's in your mind, but if you're going to be all "draw your own conclusions" like that, be prepared for people to draw their own conclusions, including ones you don't necessarily like. And when your post is largely vague platitudes and odd contradictions (Microsoft is bad for a tenth anniversary edition of Halo, but it's good they re-release Mario because...It's been ten years!), it doesn't read like a reasoned argument.

Now, don't get me wrong here: you are free to love whichever company you want for any reason, rational or otherwise. But when you portray an irrational argument, it's ridiculous to say "maybe you should consider my reasons first."

Well, maybe it doesn't lead to the conclusion you want. I'm not going to go as far as "fanboy," but your argument does not look to be reasonable. It just strikes me as that old "Genesis does what Ninten-don't" riff all over again, time and again. I think you worked backward from the conclusion that it's okay when Nintendo does it. Maybe I'm wrong, but you're asking us to consider based on...What? Not a well-reasoned argument.

 

[Yoshi4102]

And what bothers me so much is that these remakes don't add anything.

I have not played my copy of WindWaker HD yet, but if I remember reading correctly, they added a higher difficulty setting. This is something every Zelda game desperately needs. I would consider that "adding something". I really hope we get another version of Twilight Princess with this.

I'm glad other people think this too! If there's anything that can turn me off of a zelda game, it's how easy it is! Pretty much Link Between Worlds in a nutshell to me. I've yet to die and I'm nearing the final dungeon. I did hear there's a more difficult second play though but I haven't gone to see if that's true.

Also was Master Quest released with OoT 3D? If so I need to hop on that!

 

[Matthew Jabour]

And yes, I do like Nintendo more. Perhaps, instead of writing me off as a blind Nintendo fanboy, you should consider the reasons why I prefer systems with unnecessary gimmicks and lack of third-party support.

What if his consideration comes to the conclusion that you're a "blind Nintendo fanboy?"

Seriously, nobody here can know what's in your mind, but if you're going to be all "draw your own conclusions" like that, be prepared for people to draw their own conclusions, including ones you don't necessarily like. And when your post is largely vague platitudes and odd contradictions (Microsoft is bad for a tenth anniversary edition of Halo, but it's good they re-release Mario because...It's been ten years!), it doesn't read like a reasoned argument.

Now, don't get me wrong here: you are free to love whichever company you want for any reason, rational or otherwise. But when you portray an irrational argument, it's ridiculous to say "maybe you should consider my reasons first."

Well, maybe it doesn't lead to the conclusion you want. I'm not going to go as far as "fanboy," but your argument does not look to be reasonable. It just strikes me as that old "Genesis does what Ninten-don't" riff all over again, time and again. I think you worked backward from the conclusion that it's okay when Nintendo does it. Maybe I'm wrong, but you're asking us to consider based on...What? Not a well-reasoned argument.

Well, fair enough. I mean, I have explained exactly why I don't feel a Halo remake makes any sense, but if the explanation doesn't work for you, I suppose I can't really change that. Good day to you, sir.

 

[Dragonbums]

Like others have said remakes have been dine well by other companies too. And its not like Nintendo is free from lazy ones. For instance Pokemon remakes their old games almost to a T and only adding a few things.

Otherwise...guys when Jabour makes a thread- expect their to be major flaws in his/her arguments. It's like an EternalNothingneess thread.

 

[shrekfan246]

Well, fair enough. I mean, I have explained exactly why I don't feel a Halo remake makes any sense, but if the explanation doesn't work for you, I suppose I can't really change that. Good day to you, sir.

Saying it's bad because of backwards compatibility is like saying Super Mario 64 DS is bad because you still own a Nintendo 64. Or, perhaps more relevantly, like saying the Metroid Prime Trilogy for the Wii was a bad idea because you still had the Gamecube versions of the first two Metroid Prime games, which could be played perfectly well on a Wii.

Either side can make the argument and it doesn't become more legitimate just because you happen to be on a particular side.

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

I'll be honest - I love HD re-releases.

I don't view them as upgrades for existing games - they are more like ports of great games to other systems. You know how PC users sign all those petitions all the time to get a PC port of that one console game they really want to play? Well it's like that but with last-gen consoles. I never owned a PS2 and having the option to finally play some of the best games that ever came out for it on my PS3 is a godsend. If it wasn't for the fact that Sony re-released some of the PS2 classics in HD, I would never have been able to play games like Shadow of the Colossus or Jak & Daxter.

As for Nintendo... I'm not sure whether fucking with the games is the right way to go about it. I absolutely hated having to play as Yoshi for the first few hours of Mario 64 DS. I hated having arbitrary barriers like character-specific obstacles put between me qand my exploration. Yeah, sure, at least I got to play the game but I would've preferred it the way it was originally meant to be played. Or at least being given the option to ignore the new additions. Same goes for Wind Waker HD

But honestly, what's so bad about releasing old games to newer platforms so that more people get to play them?

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Well, fair enough. I mean, I have explained exactly why I don't feel a Halo remake makes any sense, but if the explanation doesn't work for you, I suppose I can't really change that. Good day to you, sir.

Saying it's bad because of backwards compatibility is like saying Super Mario 64 DS is bad because you still own a Nintendo 64. Or, perhaps more relevantly, like saying the Metroid Prime Trilogy for the Wii was a bad idea because you still had the Gamecube versions of the first two Metroid Prime games, which could be played perfectly well on a Wii.

Either side can make the argument and it doesn't become more legitimate just because you happen to be on a particular side.

I would disagree there. Your point about Mario 64 DS is illogical; its purpose is that you can play it if you have a DS, but not an N64. I'll give you some more points for the Metroid Prime Trilogy, but it's still significant because the control scheme was entirely different and, arguably, much better. Sounds a little petty, I know, but with the Halo game, you could literally put the old Halo in your Xbox 360, pick up an Xbox 360 controller, and play it. That is what I mean when I say it serves no purpose.

But again, you have your convictions, and I have mine. Neither of us will likely convince the other.