Poll: Why HD Remakes from Last Gen?

[GonzoGamer]

I would love to play the original Fallout and Fallout 2 in the Fallout 3 engine (rather, whatever they're replacing it with; that engine's a mess) but something like God of War 1 & 2 isn't old enough to be that much different from the last gen version.

Assuming you own a later model PS3 and you want to play God Of War 1 & 2. The only way buying the older version is cheaper is if you already own a PS2. Factor in the purchase of a PS2 and at least one memory stick into the equation and suddenly spending about $10 more for the PS3 version of the game seems like a pretty decent deal.

And it doesn't look like ass on your HDTV.

I've only recently made my way back to consoles. I had an Atari 2600, a NES, then switched over to PC gaming. Now that PC gaming and console gaming are on a fairly even footing, I went over to console gaming for the convenience. I did end up buying a PS2 to play older games... but I've barely played it. Simply too far away from what I'm used to. I'll probably end up giving it away when I finally play through the games I bought for it.

Yes.
Of course my opinion is entirely based on the assumption that everyone has a ps2; mostly because everyone I know has one.
But even then, you can get a ps2 for pretty cheap and the games for it you can get for a few bucks each.

Then this adds the whole other point:

They're cheap to make, and easy to sell - but a hard sell on their own, which is why you normally see "compilation" packages. In a way, though, it's dishonest - for example, when Sony sells a compilation package of PS2 games for your PS3, having removed PS2 backwards compatibility, it is asking more money for games you may already own. Is the "remastering" enough to be worth it? I do not know.

As someone who's owned many of these games on the ps2, it seems like a sneaky shit thing to do.

Of course for those few people who missed last gen, it's a good thing.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I don't. It's really kinda stupid, and unnecessary.

I beg to differ. I never had the opportunity to play a lot of those games. I'd welcome a MGS collection and I can't wait for the Team Ico collection.

 

[XT inc]

I don't mind reboots of ps1 games and older on next gen titles I mean if they wanted to redo ff7-9, parasite eve, or any number of truely older games that were out before 3d was done well thats cool. I just don't think newer games need to be redone, I mean if I wanted to play halo ce Id go to my shelf and take it down and play it.

 

[Netrigan]

I would love to play the original Fallout and Fallout 2 in the Fallout 3 engine (rather, whatever they're replacing it with; that engine's a mess) but something like God of War 1 & 2 isn't old enough to be that much different from the last gen version.

Assuming you own a later model PS3 and you want to play God Of War 1 & 2. The only way buying the older version is cheaper is if you already own a PS2. Factor in the purchase of a PS2 and at least one memory stick into the equation and suddenly spending about $10 more for the PS3 version of the game seems like a pretty decent deal.

And it doesn't look like ass on your HDTV.

I've only recently made my way back to consoles. I had an Atari 2600, a NES, then switched over to PC gaming. Now that PC gaming and console gaming are on a fairly even footing, I went over to console gaming for the convenience. I did end up buying a PS2 to play older games... but I've barely played it. Simply too far away from what I'm used to. I'll probably end up giving it away when I finally play through the games I bought for it.

Yes.
Of course my opinion is entirely based on the assumption that everyone has a ps2; mostly because everyone I know has one.
But even then, you can get a ps2 for pretty cheap and the games for it you can get for a few bucks each.

They're cheap, but they're not *that* cheap. I picked mine up for $50... not counting the price of the memory stick and replacement controller (because the one that came with it had a wonky button). And even when I did have it, I *still* bought God Of War for the PS3 because the PS2's graphics on my HDTV look really awful and I just completely prefer the way the PS3 operates.

Then this adds the whole other point:

They're cheap to make, and easy to sell - but a hard sell on their own, which is why you normally see "compilation" packages. In a way, though, it's dishonest - for example, when Sony sells a compilation package of PS2 games for your PS3, having removed PS2 backwards compatibility, it is asking more money for games you may already own. Is the "remastering" enough to be worth it? I do not know.

As someone who's owned many of these games on the ps2, it seems like a sneaky shit thing to do.

Of course for those few people who missed last gen, it's a good thing.

From what I understand the PS2 chip was removed from the PS3 to bring production costs down. The system was sold for a pretty significant loss and their initial sales were far below what they had expected. Consider the amount of money they were losing on each PS3 sold, I find it hard to get mad at them for taking something out... although they really should have put out a PS2 software emulator by now.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I think it's a good idea, and I would be willing to play them if any got released on the 360. I'm kind of excited since an HD remake of Halo:CE is rumored.

 

[Mumonk]

I would love a remade, multiplayer Skitchen' from Genesis. =)

 

[OtherSideofSky]

They've given me a chance to pick up some games I missed the first time around, often on fewer disks and for not that much money, so I'm okay with them. There don't seem to be that many of them and I doubt that they take enough resources to produce to impede the development of new games, so I can't see it really making problems for anyone, either. Honestly, I think it's mainly a side effect of the general absence of backwards compatibility this generation.

 

[Legion]

I don't like the idea of a remake from the Xbox/PS2 era, but things from the 90's and earlier I fully support.

I personally want a HD remake of System Shock, System Shock 2, Fallout, Fallout 2 and Deus Ex.

 

[Chibz]

I don't. It's really kinda stupid, and unnecessary.

I beg to differ. I never had the opportunity to play a lot of those games. I'd welcome a MGS collection and I can't wait for the Team Ico collection.

So buy and play them. It's not like consoles capable of playing last gens games are rare or expensive.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I would love to play the original Fallout and Fallout 2 in the Fallout 3 engine (rather, whatever they're replacing it with; that engine's a mess) but something like God of War 1 & 2 isn't old enough to be that much different from the last gen version.

Assuming you own a later model PS3 and you want to play God Of War 1 & 2. The only way buying the older version is cheaper is if you already own a PS2. Factor in the purchase of a PS2 and at least one memory stick into the equation and suddenly spending about $10 more for the PS3 version of the game seems like a pretty decent deal.

And it doesn't look like ass on your HDTV.

I've only recently made my way back to consoles. I had an Atari 2600, a NES, then switched over to PC gaming. Now that PC gaming and console gaming are on a fairly even footing, I went over to console gaming for the convenience. I did end up buying a PS2 to play older games... but I've barely played it. Simply too far away from what I'm used to. I'll probably end up giving it away when I finally play through the games I bought for it.

Yes.
Of course my opinion is entirely based on the assumption that everyone has a ps2; mostly because everyone I know has one.
But even then, you can get a ps2 for pretty cheap and the games for it you can get for a few bucks each.

They're cheap, but they're not *that* cheap. I picked mine up for $50... not counting the price of the memory stick and replacement controller (because the one that came with it had a wonky button). And even when I did have it, I *still* bought God Of War for the PS3 because the PS2's graphics on my HDTV look really awful and I just completely prefer the way the PS3 operates.

Then this adds the whole other point:

They're cheap to make, and easy to sell - but a hard sell on their own, which is why you normally see "compilation" packages. In a way, though, it's dishonest - for example, when Sony sells a compilation package of PS2 games for your PS3, having removed PS2 backwards compatibility, it is asking more money for games you may already own. Is the "remastering" enough to be worth it? I do not know.

As someone who's owned many of these games on the ps2, it seems like a sneaky shit thing to do.

Of course for those few people who missed last gen, it's a good thing.

From what I understand the PS2 chip was removed from the PS3 to bring production costs down. The system was sold for a pretty significant loss and their initial sales were far below what they had expected. Consider the amount of money they were losing on each PS3 sold, I find it hard to get mad at them for taking something out... although they really should have put out a PS2 software emulator by now.

Well...
That's a whole 'nother subject.
One of the issues I have with the ps3 in general is that every time an issue comes up, rather than them thinking of a clever way around it, we lose a feature off the ps3.
It just seems like a crappy thing to do to your consumers and it?s turning me off to the brand. I?m going to be very unlikely to buy a ps4 and I?m definitely not buying one at launch; I?m going to wait and see how badly they sandbag it first.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I don't. It's really kinda stupid, and unnecessary.

I beg to differ. I never had the opportunity to play a lot of those games. I'd welcome a MGS collection and I can't wait for the Team Ico collection.

So buy and play them. It's not like consoles capable of playing last gens games are rare or expensive.

This assuming I have the budget to buy them despite them being relatively inexpensive. I do not. Nor am I allowed to bring any more consoles into the house. It's more of a hastle too.

So as I said before, I welcome these collections, it gives me a chance to play games I couldn't play otherwise but still want to. Given, I see why remakes of last-gen games are usually kinda silly, as they're in recent memory anyway, but still, they're of personal use.

 

[stefani_saturn]

I wish the current systems just had proper backward capability for all games of the last gen, i had a real hankering for some The Warriors a bit back, i put it in my xbox360 expecting to play it, i was sorely disapointed.

 

[WorldCritic]

I don't really care much if they remake a last gen game in HD. If I already had the game the first time around then I won't bother with the rerelease.
As for HD remakes of even older game, no thanks. I'd rather not play Castlevania in Lords of Shadow style. Maybe if they make it 2.5 D then I'll consider it.

 

[MrSnaztastic]

The best thing these "remakes" bring are improvements in visual quality and crucially PERFORMANCE. Having a solid framerate in these as opposed to the action slowing to a painful crawl when there's a lot on screen means a lot to me. The other stuff like trophies, 3D support etc. is nice, but meh.

Honestly, I'd rather the games were made from the ground up in an all new engine with the advancements in graphics, sound and gameplay we've seen this generation. But that would be way too expensive.

Having standard def games re-released in HD with the performance benefits that come from being on a next-gen console is definitely worth paying for. It's just I've yet to see a game I'd wanna get that's been "remade" in this way.

 

[AnonymousTipster]

I'm neutral on the subject. In some cases I think it's unnecessary. But in the case of rare/hard to find games or games that were completely slept on when they were released, I think it's pretty cool.

 

[MRMIdAS2k]

Because HD is the new gimmick that the mongs will pay for.

like releasing movies in "HD", yeah, Cassablanca's gonna look superb when the HD is taken from the same fucking print as my DVD version.

 

[omicron1]

I would love to play the original Fallout and Fallout 2 in the Fallout 3 engine (rather, whatever they're replacing it with; that engine's a mess) but something like God of War 1 & 2 isn't old enough to be that much different from the last gen version.

Assuming you own a later model PS3 and you want to play God Of War 1 & 2. The only way buying the older version is cheaper is if you already own a PS2. Factor in the purchase of a PS2 and at least one memory stick into the equation and suddenly spending about $10 more for the PS3 version of the game seems like a pretty decent deal.

And it doesn't look like ass on your HDTV.

I've only recently made my way back to consoles. I had an Atari 2600, a NES, then switched over to PC gaming. Now that PC gaming and console gaming are on a fairly even footing, I went over to console gaming for the convenience. I did end up buying a PS2 to play older games... but I've barely played it. Simply too far away from what I'm used to. I'll probably end up giving it away when I finally play through the games I bought for it.

Yes.
Of course my opinion is entirely based on the assumption that everyone has a ps2; mostly because everyone I know has one.
But even then, you can get a ps2 for pretty cheap and the games for it you can get for a few bucks each.

Then this adds the whole other point:

They're cheap to make, and easy to sell - but a hard sell on their own, which is why you normally see "compilation" packages. In a way, though, it's dishonest - for example, when Sony sells a compilation package of PS2 games for your PS3, having removed PS2 backwards compatibility, it is asking more money for games you may already own. Is the "remastering" enough to be worth it? I do not know.

As someone who's owned many of these games on the ps2, it seems like a sneaky shit thing to do.

Of course for those few people who missed last gen, it's a good thing.

One thing worth noting that I just found out recently is that Sony are replacing the hardware PS2 emulation with software emulation - in effect, adding back in the ability to run certain PS2 games. Which I thought was a right classy thing for them to do, and supports the idea that the PS2 emulation was removed to save on costs.

 

[Netrigan]

Because HD is the new gimmick that the mongs will pay for.

like releasing movies in "HD", yeah, Cassablanca's gonna look superb when the HD is taken from the same fucking print as my DVD version.

Problem I see on the console side is that they seem to have been aiming for a particular resolution and the PS2 games I have often look worse on a HDTV than they do on a regular TV. I bought GTA: SA for the 360 and I swear there's parts of the screen which look blurry.

 

[Frotality]

well most modern games are crap, si at least i can play some classics with beefed up graphics. id really like to dues ex and system shock 2 HD-ified, but id also rather see them just straight up remade...on second thought, they'd probably be supremely dumbed down if remade, so yeah, im all for HD remakes, its one of the few obvious moneygrabs i can support.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

HD Halo 2 with online multiplayer for 2400 MS points. Make it happen, Microsoft!

The last game they remade that I was interested in was MvC2, and I loved that remake. I'm all for it, I just wish they'd remake games that people actually care about more often. Instead we get... Bionic Commando? Really?