No Right Answer: Are Remastered Video Games Stupid?

[ExtraDebit]

They should give us the "remastered" as a patch for FREE! like what cdproject did with the witcher. How come developers never show gamers any gratitude for our support?

 

[Darth_Payn]

Remastering games has a more positive than negative effect if the timing is right. For example: Metal Gear Solid hit the PS1 in 1998, then was remade in 2003 (or '04?) for the Gamecube, and that was the version I was able to beat. Besides, so many classic games are made for now-obsolete systems, so we WANT to play them, and they may not have a PC version available.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm glad they're re-releasing REmake. I never got a chance to play it on the Gamecube, and it's fucking impossible to find nowadays. It was also exclussive to Gamecube, whereas now it's getting a PS3, PS4, 360, Xbone, and I'm assuming PC release.

But then I have no issues with HD remake/remasters in general. Whether it's movies, music, or games, everything gets re-released and remastered for whatever new tech hit the scene. And it's a nice way to show off older stuff in a more technological advanced way. And it's not like the original won't still be there... well, most of the time. Not when counting REmake, that's for sure.

 

[Veylon]

Remastering/remaking something that only came out a few years ago strikes me as pointless. Doing this with something from a previous eon that can benefit from all the advances from then until now is fine, or even great. Something like those old terrible-looking early DOS games or early Win95 games with dodgy compatibility.

Reselling something in a collection is good, especially if it's for older systems that aren't easy to come by.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wouldn't this issue be solved much more efficiently if the console manufacturers weren't intent on axing backwards compatibility? I think there is a merit to a remaster after some amount of time, but anything from the last gen would almost certainly have been better served by just having backwards-compatible consoles.

How much extra are you willing to pay for backwards compatibility, though? That was one of the primary forces behind the price of the PS3 early on. I mean, Nintendo can get away with it because the guts of a Wii cost a buck fifty to add in nowadays, but in all probability you're looking at another two hundred bucks for backwards compatibility on either Nintendo or Microsoft's consoles. Do you think the market would support 600-700 dollar consoles? Software compatibility had no end of trouble last gen, too. I'm not sure that's necessarily a guarantee of efficiency.

Would backwards compatibility be nice? Yeah. Would it readily cure the woes here? Maybe. Would it do so in an efficient fashion? Probably not.

 

[kailus13]

As with all games, it depends on how well it's done. I bought Ocarina of Time HD and loved it, having never owned a N64. I'd also buy Majora's Mask HD if only Nintendo would actually make it.

I think we can all agree though, that if a company loses or destroys part of it's coding, they probably shouldn't try to remaster it anyway.

 

[vxicepickxv]

There are so many factors that it varies from game to game. Super Mario All Stars added the lost levels, and upgraded all the graphics. Silent Hill removed the factors of creepy that made it a good game.

 

[G00N3R7883]

Its pretty much a case by case basis.

I play most of my games on PC, and I also own a 360, but I've never owned any Playstation console. Rereleasing the best PS games for PS4 - specifically Last of Us and the Uncharted series, would make that a very tempting purchase for me. I played Resident Evil 4 for the first time this year on PC (and loved it). I've never played RE2 or 3 so would like to see those come to Steam.

On the other hand, games I've already played, I have no desire to buy again just for some shinier graphics. The Metro series immediately comes to mind.

Does Tomb Raider Anniversary count? It was almost a complete rebuild of game mechanics and level design. Its probably my favourite game in the series so I'm glad that happened.

 

[geier]

Are Remastered Video Games Stupid?

I can answer this question with two words and a number: Dungeon Keeper 2
I cannot play this game. Really, it is hideous. I want to like this game, but the graphics are in this first gen 3D and look like folded paper.
Re-Release it with todays graphics and you get a game that gives the player no eye cancer.

 

[laggyteabag]

There are two types of remakes in my mind:
1) The remake in which they do very little but upscale the resolution to something more modern. I consider this to be a cash grab as they hardly did anything to make it look better. The Last of Us Remastered (More understandable considering that the game was very new)
2) The remake in which they completely redo all of the assets for the game. This kind of remaster is worthwhile, and a lot of effort obviously went into making it. Example: Halo: CEA and the Master Chief Collection.

 

[144_v1legacy]

It depends. I like a good remake. For example, I've been waiting for ever for a remake to FF7, so I can play it. I've simply become too accustomed to modern-day graphical standards to play the old version (which hasn't aged well), and want to pay money and buy a new one.

I want to play Majora's mask again, but I simply won't until a remake comes out. The N64 textures and art style of that game ages poorly, and it needs a serious facelift (before I put it ahead of the other games in my backlog). I know Nintendo's working on it.

While we're on the Zelda category, I just finished WWHD. That's a game that really didn't need a remake. It aged fine. And yet, playing it on the gigantic new Samsung, I'm glad it exists. It was carefully crafted, and wasn't just a shit-out version (and thank god, because it's my favorite game).

I see nothing wrong with making remakes. At the end of the day, it's up to the consumer to choose whether or not to buy it. And games aren't like movies - the old-time quality of an old movie can make it charming, but the poor textures of an old game make it difficult to get through.

If only someone would remake Space Station Silicon Valley. It'll never happen, which I guess means I'll just never stop bringing it up.

captcha: i love lamp

 

[Kennetic]

Most remastered rereleases have been good for me. I never played Shadow of the Colossus or Ico. Playing a PS2 on an HD tv looks horrendous and muddy. I don't own a tube tv anymore so remasters are good for me. I never personally owned or beat any of the Halo games but I have an Xbox One now so that would be a good investment.

I bought a Vita for the sole purpose of playing Persona 4. I tried to play P4 on an emulator but the disc would stop spinning and the game would lag until the disc started spinning again. I've up more games for Vita so it was a good investment as well.

 

[Strazdas]

Of course remastered video games are bad. Is it stupid though? well if you keep paying for them then no its smart way to make them richer.

See, if the game is built well to begin with, it will scale with new hardware and will be just fine. ive seen Silent Hill 1 in 4k resolution and you wouldnt really say its that old of a game if you didnt knew it.

Meanwhile doing something that should be automated based on hardware and then asking extra money for it seems to somehow work, for example Tom Raider, The Last of Us.

Mat is wrong with the "Crap version" argument. If a game is good, it will remain good 10 years after. If it doesnt, it wasnt that good to begin with no was it. Also as he correctly points nostalgia is a very strong factor why people love older games. Thing is, most of the time its more fantasy than reality. For example i utterly love Orda. Looking objectively though its a horrible game.

Are Remastered Video Games Stupid?

I can answer this question with two words and a number: Dungeon Keeper 2
I cannot play this game. Really, it is hideous. I want to like this game, but the graphics are in this first gen 3D and look like folded paper.
Re-Release it with todays graphics and you get a game that gives the player no eye cancer.

I played DK and DK2 last year. yes, the graphics are pretty bad, but its still fun to play. Also DK1 has fan made engine rebuild, which is free and uses DK files to make thier own game (its actually identical to original, they just say similar for legality reasons) which improves the graphical problems a bit.
Besuide the half-working menus in DK2 otherwise the game works fine.

Sony announced that many PS4 owners were not on PS3, why do you want those guys to spend another $200 just so they can play The Last of Us or PS3 hit soandso?

Also, when criticising Remaster practise, you're essentially defending exclusivity, just that it's not exclusivity of manufacturers (Sony/Microsoft), but exclusivity of console generations (PS2/PS3/PS4).

the fault here lies with Sony for limiting TLOU to PS3 to begin with.
Also had console manufacturers pulled their heads out of their asses and followed manufacturing standards, backward compatibility wouldnt be an issue. See - PC backward compatibility.

So in the end, It would all be Sonys problem that they created themselves.

 

[Olas]

Regardless of how you feel about remastering, can we all agree it's dumb to call the it things like "definitive edition" as if the people who bought the original don't own the 'true version'? That really pisses me off.

 

[thiosk]

I grew up on the original Resident Evil and RE2. I consider them the best of the series-- but its the pacing and control scheme that I LIKE about them. I've not played 5 or 6

 

[Brockyman]

Are Remastered Video Games Stupid?

As the prophetic Jim Sterling foretold, Resident Evil is being remade...again. Is this a stupid, unimaginative move, or a way to introduce new audiences to great games?

Watch Video

Sorry, but ya'll are completely wrong. I can semi-understand your points, but you don't take into account what other's may think.

Example 1: Last of Us Remastered. This was perfect for me b/c I traded in my PS3 before it was released and it meant I got to play it.

Example 2: Halo. All of my friends are excited about this to relieve classic games they played in high school and college. Halo 1 and 2 are over 10 years old and were classic XBox games. Also, a lot of people DON'T HAVE their 360s because we traded them in to help pay for the Xbox One/PS4 or games.

Also, this bullcrap about "cash grabs".... Let's break this down

Honestly Good Value
Last of Us Remastered came out for $10 less than standard with all the DLC which is about another $10-15 in value.
Halo MCE is $60, but will include 4 games and all their DLC with a lot of work to remaster them for 1080p/60fps AND extra content, and done by people who love the franchise ALL WHILE WORKING on Halo 5

New Consoles
The argument about the 3DS remakes of Star Fox and Ocarina are a good example of bringing an older game to a new generation without digging out or buying old consoles.

Consumers
People have to buy them in order for the developers to grab any cash... if the people don't want them, than they won't buy them
Zelda 3DS 3.36 million worldwide
Star Fox 3DS 810,000 worldwide
Last of US Remasterd 1.5 MILLION IN 24 HOURS

It seems like people like remakes for many reasons, and while there are examples of crappy ones (GoldenEye), the Halo Master Chief Edition is a good buy for those that want to relive some of their memories, or the Last of Us who didn't get to play it or loved it so much, they want to play it again.

 

[Brockyman]

The problem with many Remasters is that they only improve upon the presentation. Granted, graphics are somewhat important in games, but there is more to a good videogame. A remaster that only improves the presentation is like re-releasing a book, but instead of using cheap,super-thin, slightly brownish paper you use thicker, slightly whiter paper instead of ironing out plot-holes and grammatical errors.

If Remasters would actually improve gameplay, improve map-layouts, make the AI smarter, tweak the in-game economy, offer more unlockables and such things, people would be much more open to the idea I think.

The Resident Evil remake for instance is going to incorporate a new relative control scheme. I personally won't be using it, but I know many people can't stand the absolute one from the older games. So that is an improvement which makes the remake seem not as lazy as other Remasters.

I haven't played it but does The Last of Us on PS4 actually improve upon the PS3 version? Other than the presentation I mean? Is the AI smarter? Is the item-management better? Is it an overall better experience or just a better looking experience?

The problem with changing the gameplay is that you will earn the ire of some of the fans that hope it controls the same way. The Halo team actually put a glitch BACK IN to the game b/c it was such an iconic part of the Halo 2 Multiplayer experience. (like the combo system in Street Fighter was a left in glitch that make it a world wide best seller).

I never played Resident Evil so I can't speak on it. I think that would be an interesting genre called "re-imagining" where you take the premise, but change it up.

Last of Us wasn't changed much (I saw my friend play some it on the PS3, I didn't play it til the PS4), but the AI seems similar. I do think its cool that it was $10 under standard and had all the DLC

 

[Brockyman]

Remakes would be 100% unnecessary for any games of the Gamecube, PS1, Xbox generation or later if you offered full backwards compatibility in all systems to go back that far. Re-releasing or remaster old cartridge based games, I fully understand because the technology has evolved to a point to where we simply can't play the Super Mario Bros cartridge on a WiiU, but for a very small price, we can just buy an downloadable version of that same game.

I'm against the remake, remaster, re-released unless it is to bring back something that can't be played, or to improve on something that actually benefits from the improvements. And as for stuff like the Last of Us or Tomb Raider Definitive Edition, they wouldn't be needed if the current gen consoles were backwards compatible. But MS and Sony want more money and won't offer those options to those of us willing to pay for those options (because there are plenty out there that want said options). So this is just something we're stuck with until people actually do something interesting in this generation of games.

The Backward Compatibility argument has always had a special place in my heart. It's the perfect example of gamer entitlement and lack of understanding how development/pricing, and the real world in general work.

You can't just say "I want this system to play these games". There are different software, different system and processing architecture, and a lot of work that goes into designing the system for compatibility.

As far as "offer these options to those willing to pay" also isn't something they can really do. When consoles are first released, the only difference in the SKUS are accessories (Kinect), hard drive space, and game bundled in (download code or physical copy), the system itself is the exact same. If you recall, there were shortages of both the PS4 and Xbox One on release, meaning they couldn't produce enough units (at that time only one SKU per console) to meet demand. Think if they designed a more expensive/labor intensive backward compatible model (that would probably be $100 more)? Could they guarantee that people would actually pay MORE for something they may already hooked up their TVs to take the risks?

I traded in all my old systems for the new ones, mainly because I wanted something new and fresh and didn't want to keep up the old ones for 2 or 3 games. I see the Master Chief collection with its improved visuals, all the maps, and the ability to play online with my friends, and I'm very happy they put the work into it, instead of playing a the older versions that couldn't be supported online (Halo 2) or would be glitchy in a backward compatibility emulator.

As far as Last of Us and Tomb Raider being upgraded, I don't see that as a bad thing either. I didn't play them on last gen and bought them for my current gen consoles and loved both of them. If you still have/played them on your last gen systems, you aren't required to buy the new version, its an option for people like me who missed them, or people that wanted them upgraded for their shiny new consoles.

But I think my biggest issue (and I'm not attacking you personally) is the entitlement I see from many gamers... that they are OWED backward compatibility for some reason. Only 5 consoles (PS2, Xbox 360, PS3, Wii and Wii U) have offered them out of 8 console generations, so it's not an industry standard. The PS3 suffered on it's release due to it having the PS2 hardware inside, bumping up the cost. Many games didn't work or were glitchy. I hope your experience was good, but I had lost saves, lag, slowdowns ect when I tried to use the Xbox 360 to play Halo 1 or games made about that time.

Honestly, if you want to play old games, keep or purchase the system it was made to be played on or be glad that some of these are being remade for new audiences.

 

[leviadragon99]

Depends entirely on context.

Some games have not aged well in one way or another and can benefit from a new coat of paint or some mechanical tweaks, others still hold up and remaking them would just be redundant.

I would argue that some remakes don't go far enough, leaving glaring issues untouched as sacred cows, while others miss the point and change things that should have been left well enough alone.