Remaking Old Games is a Fool's Errand

[Saelune]

What big changes? A belt to make Young Link look like Majora's Mask Link? The lack of big changes is why I like them, and why I don't like Majora's Mask 3D, since my previous knowledge of the game hinders me too often in that one.

Huh? Did my first response to you go right over your head or something? There is a big difference between them and originals, but like I said, you may not care about those certain things. I do though. This is why I disagree with what you said earlier, when you pointed to those remakes as improvements that keep it intact. I really didn't say more than this.

You have no chance of changing my mind, and I didn't want to change yours, just point out there are hardly any good examples. These Nintendo examples are not faithful to the originals in the slightest. Changing the models, lighting and voice acting (among other things) can completely alter the experience entirely, and they do.

I'm asking you to elaborate. What are the big changes you don't like about them?

 

[Nazulu]

I'm asking you to elaborate. What are the big changes you don't like about them?

That's not really the point though, again. Plus I already said in my first comment.

 

[Saelune]

I'm asking you to elaborate. What are the big changes you don't like about them?

That's not really the point though, again. Plus I already said in my first comment.

You said why you don't like the Black Mesa remake of HL1, which I never played. As for the 3DS remakes, those are minor ones, ones that I also disagree with since I think they made both games look much better.

 

[Nazulu]

I'm asking you to elaborate. What are the big changes you don't like about them?

That's not really the point though, again. Plus I already said in my first comment.

You said why you don't like the Black Mesa remake of HL1, which I never played. As for the 3DS remakes, those are minor ones, ones that I also disagree with since I think they made both games look much better.

There is so much to be said, and I don't have time for it, which is why I never set up my comments to go into long explanations on certain topics. What I said about Black Mesa is just a crumb out of the whole problem cake.

Plus you're repeating your opinion on the 3DS remakes now, which I also stated, so I think we can end this now, but thanks for responding so quickly.

 

[darkrage6]

While I sorta agree, maybe, Nintendo is making an effort to actually re-release old games via Virtual Console, something that neither of the other console makers are doing - hell, you can't even buy PS1 games on the PS4 despite it being available on both PS3 and Vita.

I don't think Nintendo intended to 'replace' Star Fox 64 (and by extension the original SNES game), since both 64 and 64 3D are available to buy on VC and 3DS respectively (I do like 64 3D, any negative changes are entirely aesthetics-based and not a big deal, same with OOT 3D and Majora's Mask 3D, which I honestly consider to the the definitive version of both games in pretty much every way, they're just so much more playable and better-looking while being faithful to the original games art style). Zero sorta follows the same premise as 64 and SNES, but the progression is considerably different and even has some major story changes.

Besides, I find it hilarious that people are up in arms about Star Fox Zero having a 'gimmick' when the entire series has been built on being tech demos for certain things - the original SNES game was for the 3D FX Chip, Star Fox 2 was supposed to be a sorta-strategy game with absolutely no on-rails sections and the chicken walker, 64 was for the Rumble Pak, Adventures was a graphical showcase that still holds up today, Assault had the ground combat (wasn't so great, but the multiplayer was absolutely incredible) and Command had stylus movement and the turn-based "RTS" mission structure. Zero is just continuing a series tradition. Zero's motion controls aren't even bad, they could be better and take time to get used to, sure, but I honestly can't go back to 64's control scheme when Zero provides a beautifully elegant control scheme that relies on just the sticks and triggers (and a single button from time to time to transform). So much more control and flexibility, while allowing the gameplay to be faster-paced and more interesting - Star Wolf dogfights are more aggressive and challenging since you no longer need to get directly behind an enemy to shoot at them, the challenge is keeping them in your sights. And the gamepad screen isn't even needed 80% of the time, you could probably tweak the gameplay a bit to not need the gamepad screen at all. The gyro takes a bit of practice, but at least it's way easier than inputs you see in traditional fighting games.

Do remember that people hated the dual-stick paradigm when it was first being used in FPS titles before Halo came along and popularized it, and non-gamers find modern controllers that don't use motion controls to be incredibly unintuitive. More games need to use gyro controls, really, it's a godsend in Splatoon and the Steam Controller would be much worse without it.

the controls are awful

 

[sageoftruth]

In my opinion, the best way one could use reboots to benefit the game industry would be by rebooting old games that had great ideas but bombed horribly thanks to development hell or technological limitations. I'd love to see reboots used as second chances for poorly executed ideas.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Before you can remake a game you have to understand what made the game great to begin with. THat is the step so often overstepped by those who would remake a game. There is too much desire to 'fix' or 'improve' without understanding what it is you are working on. The enjoyment of a game comes from the sum total of all its parts, good, bad and mediocre. Take TMNT for the NES or Battletoads.; can you honestly say these games would hold the same appeal if they were 'fixed'? If the dam stage was more lenient or the jetski sections more forgiving. No.

This is not to say a remake can't do things right and elevate the game, but in such a case the effort might well be wasted. How? The effort, dedication and time required to pull a remake off 'right' is no different from the time, care and dedication required to make a brand new game with a brand new IP.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I felt so compelled to argue your points here, I went and dusted off this old account. As someone who has played pretty much every game in this series, I can happily say that I loved every second of this thing. This was forty bucks well spent for me, and I don't see where you're coming from here. All due respect, to say that this game is "the EXACT same" as the original is a near complete lie. The story is widely different,

I'm not sure you've really played the first game then. The story's exactly the same. Story's also about two sentences long.

and there are almost no weapons from the original game.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/561107-ratchet-and-clank/faqs/59212

Half the weapons are directly from the first game. All the gadgets are.

The cast is either populated with entirely new characters, characters who were already there being differently interpreted by some degree or another, and then there's the characters who are outright gone. Many of the areas from the first game are here, yes, but are done differently enough that any claim of them being the "exact same" is going to fall flat. And I could go on.

You really couldn't. There's shockingly actually less areas in the "remake" than the original game. It's SHORTER. But the area progression is still almost beat for beat the same. Saying "Well they changed the level design" is laughable. Of course they're going to change the level design. But the level itself is still basically the same. Each planet has two to three objective "paths" that lead to a shortcut back to the start. Just like before.

I would hardly call the card system "pointless". There's no arguing that it's a gimmick, but at least it's a gimmick that does something useful. More bolts and raritanium may not be earth shattering, but it's not exactly detrimental, either.

All it does is increase the percent rate of some stuff. That's useless. You have no idea what the drop rate is to start with, and increasing it makes no substantive change to gameplay at all. If you played the game without picking up a single card nothing would change. That's a pointless gameplay system.

The game doesn't even play differently. The controls are still pretty much identical. You avoid things by aim/lock strafing and double jumping back and forth while shooting enemies as fast as you can. Nothing has changed. At no point did I say the game was not good, but it's the same game we played a decade ago.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

You can play the original Ratchet and Clank games through the PSnow streaming service. Admittidly, i'd certainly prefer a disc, but they aren't throwing away their past games. And like has already been mentioned, the remake has smoothly improved gameplay and movement. Sometimes it's nice to modernise classics with shiny chrome nitros injection fluff.

 

[Flathole]

I'd agree most of the time, but there are definitely some remakes so teste-ticklingly wonderful that they're practically a new game altogether.

Consider the remake of the original Resident Evil for the Gamecube in like 2002. Most of the flaws of the PS1 original were tossed out- the awful live-action opening replaced with an animated cutscene, the horrific voice-acting replaced with... still kind of bad VA (since it was 2002) but considerably better, not cringe-worthy at least. A complete visual overhaul that made the game outright stunning (still is today, IMO), drastic audio changes to enhance the atmosphere, a new enemy type (Crimson heads) that brought survival to the forefront and making backtracking risky and dangerous, self-defense weapons and slightly tighter controls to balance for the new difficulty-

AND, to top all that off, massive amounts of gameplay segments were added, pushing about 1/3 extra content into the game, including the memorable Lisa Trevor. Oh, and the box art was changed from "Chris holding a huge gun and looking constipated while standing in front of an explosion" to "Jill being attacked by a single zombie in a dark, claustrophobic hallway."

REmake is practically a completely different game. It's one of my favorite games even today, but I doubt I could have played the PS1 original and felt any degree of tension.

What's the point in remaking something that was already good in the first place?

To take a highly flawed game with good ideas in it, then polishing it up in EVERY area and removing as many weaknesses as possible so people can enjoy the goodness without being dragged down by any shit that may be covering it.

Also, the PS3 had some "bundled" re-releases of game SERIES' (not just one game), 2-3 games together in HD harmony with bugs and frame-rate issues ironed out.

 

[Magmarock]

This is honestly one of the best articles I've read. I think people don't read enough of Yahtzee's articles and they really should should. Quite insightful. There's not really much for me to add here other then I simply agree with almost all of his points. I mean as bad as consoles are with their outdated technology lack of quality in construction and awful controls. It's the lack of backwards compatibility that really gets to me.

 

[Flatfrog]

I don't see why it would be hard for modern consoles to include emulators for older ones. I've got an N64 emulator and a PS1 emulator on my computer that I've used to play old Crash Bandicoot and Banjo-Kazooie games perfectly successfully. I suspect the biggest problem isn't making the consoles backwards compatible but dealing with the horribly complicated rights issues involved.

 

[Magmarock]

I don't see why it would be hard for modern consoles to include emulators for older ones. I've got an N64 emulator and a PS1 emulator on my computer that I've used to play old Crash Bandicoot and Banjo-Kazooie games perfectly successfully. I suspect the biggest problem isn't making the consoles backwards compatible but dealing with the horribly complicated rights issues involved.

For downloads maybe but if you wanted to implement the software simply to play it from a disc you already own it shouldn't be a problem. With PS1 emulators if you want it to be 100% legal then you just need two things. 1 you must own a physical copy of the game you are running even if you're using an iso. 2. you must own a physical PlayStation with matching bios firmware as that used in the emulator. Then you're all green as far as copy right goes. This is to the best of my knowledge. I'm a not a lawyer

 

[Remus]

And yet Doom is still awesome. If a game is remade in the spirit of the original and isn't simply a retread of the same level design with updated graphics, I say go for it! As for Silent Hill 4, if they fix AI pathing issues, I might try it again. Never could get Eileen through a level unscathed so i got stuck with one of the bad endings.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I would say a stronger point could be made by saying it's better to make a new game / sequel than to remake a game that has already proven itself good and that could only possibly be updated with some visual polish. Let's look at Super MArio Bros (the original). That first level has been remade in several different Mario 2D titles (very recently) but thats as far as most of the new games go, offering new levels, items, enemies, etc. While the "New" Super Mario bros games don't feel like they're doing anything truly innovative, they're at least adding new tricks to old ideas, making a new game in the process without remaking the first entirely.

Or, to put it another way, it'd be more like remaking Portal but with polished graphics, no changes to gameplay, and maybe several moments that are designed to pad out the run-time of the game without actually being necessary to the game. The current Portal game is damn near perfect. If we're going to make more things in Portal, can we just make a new game rather than remake the first one? New stories, characters, and concepts rather than wallowing in what was already successful and that I already bought for $5? I'm not interested in buying it again. I want something new. And that's my general problem with remakes is that it shows a lack of creativity and a growth in stagnation while waiting for something truly new or innovative to arrive.

 

[CaitSeith]

I would say a stronger point could be made by saying it's better to make a new game / sequel than to remake a game that has already proven itself good and that could only possibly be updated with some visual polish. Let's look at Super MArio Bros (the original). That first level has been remade in several different Mario 2D titles (very recently) but thats as far as most of the new games go, offering new levels, items, enemies, etc. While the "New" Super Mario bros games don't feel like they're doing anything truly innovative, they're at least adding new tricks to old ideas, making a new game in the process without remaking the first entirely.

Or, to put it another way, it'd be more like remaking Portal but with polished graphics, no changes to gameplay, and maybe several moments that are designed to pad out the run-time of the game without actually being necessary to the game. The current Portal game is damn near perfect. If we're going to make more things in Portal, can we just make a new game rather than remake the first one? New stories, characters, and concepts rather than wallowing in what was already successful and that I already bought for $5? I'm not interested in buying it again. I want something new. And that's my general problem with remakes is that it shows a lack of creativity and a growth in stagnation while waiting for something truly new or innovative to arrive.

Just wait the day (maybe 20 years from now) when the latest graphics make Portal look like Earthbound in comparison, and the latest technology makes it impossible or awkward to play.

 

[CaitSeith]

Holy crap this standout is a bit of a bad logic bad case.

"Besides, the original creators of a game don't see any of the money from a second-hand sale, and I'm somewhat invested in the system wherein professional creatives get paid to do work."

Does this mean that used book stores should pay royalties to authors? Does this mean that people who sell paintings they bought from an artist should give royalties to an artist again? No?

Well what makes video game content creators so different that they feel entitled to doubledip when literally every OTHER artist respects First Sale Doctrine?

If I buy a copy of a new game, you should get your cut. Obviously. You deserve a cut for every copy in circulation. If 100 copies are in circulation, you should get 100 paychecks. If a million are, you get a million paychecks. This is fair and equitable. Any more or less is not.

So, if you sold 1000 copies and only got 300 paychecks... that's not right. If you sold 1000 copies and got 2000 paychecks, that's also not right.

So let's say those thousand people sell their copies. How many total paychecks do you deserve? Well, 1000 copies in circulation equals 1000 paychecks, so you should be paid a total of 1000 times. So, we take the 1000 times you already were paid, subtract 1000 from that... and look, you get paid zero times from secondary sales, because you were already paid for those copies.

See your sentence implies that professional creators were NOT paid to do work, but you were. Every used copy sold was originally a new copy sold, and that means that you have already BEEN paid.

I have yet to see a single justification for why video game artists are special cases where they are somehow different from all other artists, and I am waiting patiently for someone to actually explain this.

You have a point. Whetever they deserve to be payed double or not, it's certain that there is something not working correctly in the gaming industry that makes the second-hand sales look like a very negative prescence from the artists' perspective (maybe the cost & time vs gains ratio is different than with other artists). Besides, when I buy second-hand, they don't receive any money from me (all my money goes to the store). But if I like the game very much, I want the artists to have my money as a token of gratitude (not the store or the publishers/investors).

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Holy crap this standout is a bit of a bad logic bad case.

"Besides, the original creators of a game don't see any of the money from a second-hand sale, and I'm somewhat invested in the system wherein professional creatives get paid to do work."

Does this mean that used book stores should pay royalties to authors? Does this mean that people who sell paintings they bought from an artist should give royalties to an artist again? No?

Well what makes video game content creators so different that they feel entitled to doubledip when literally every OTHER artist respects First Sale Doctrine?

If I buy a copy of a new game, you should get your cut. Obviously. You deserve a cut for every copy in circulation. If 100 copies are in circulation, you should get 100 paychecks. If a million are, you get a million paychecks. This is fair and equitable. Any more or less is not.

So, if you sold 1000 copies and only got 300 paychecks... that's not right. If you sold 1000 copies and got 2000 paychecks, that's also not right.

So let's say those thousand people sell their copies. How many total paychecks do you deserve? Well, 1000 copies in circulation equals 1000 paychecks, so you should be paid a total of 1000 times. So, we take the 1000 times you already were paid, subtract 1000 from that... and look, you get paid zero times from secondary sales, because you were already paid for those copies.

See your sentence implies that professional creators were NOT paid to do work, but you were. Every used copy sold was originally a new copy sold, and that means that you have already BEEN paid.

I have yet to see a single justification for why video game artists are special cases where they are somehow different from all other artists, and I am waiting patiently for someone to actually explain this.

You have a point. Whetever they deserve to be payed double or not, it's certain that there is something not working correctly in the gaming industry that makes the second-hand sales look like a very negative prescence from the artists' perspective (maybe the cost & time vs gains ratio is different than with other artists). Besides, when I buy second-hand, they don't receive any money from me (all my money goes to the store). But if I like the game very much, I want the artists to have my money as a token of gratitude (not the store or the publishers/investors).

The problem is not second-hand sales as a concept.

The issue is that video game retail is dominated by GameStop, who pushed used sales like crazy because it gives them more profit. Also, there's the fact that a new release game is $60 whereas a new release hardcover book is around $20-30, a movie ticket is about $10, and a new release DVD/Blu-Ray is around $20; game customers are going to be drawn to save wherever they can, even it's just $5-10 per game by buying used whenever possible.

Between these two things, we have a situation where, compared to other media, the used game market is much more visible, available, and desirable than other forms of media. Yes, used book stores, used DVD/Blu-Ray stores, and libraries which have both for free borrowing exist, but those are a much less powerful market force than in the GameStop-dominated game market. I agree with CaitSeith in principle; the right of first sale must continue to exist as a basic property right to have a healthy free market for the end-consumer. At the same time, I sympathize with developers who may lose out on a ton of potential new sales because getting a used copy at GameStop is extremely easy for the consumers.

In my mind, the best solution is that we, as consumers, should be more aware of where our money is going. I intentionally bought Tomb Raider 2013 new because I wanted to support the developers and their vision for the series. I intentionally bought Assassin's Creed III new because I bought every other game before it in the series used and I basically wanted to say "thank you" to Ubisoft for creating a series that I loved (sadly, III turned out to be "meh" and killed my investment in the series, but that's beside the point right now). I bought Shovel Knight new because Yacht Club Games is an indie developer and I wanted to support them so that they keep making great games.

I think if consumers were a little more mindful in their purchasing decisions the "used games problem" would be less of a problem and everybody would win; either way, the anti-consumer bull that is coming down the pipe is not the way to go. And I usually respect your opinions Yahtzee, but pundits like you undermining the doctrine of first sale isn't a good way to go either. The corporations that hold so much power already would LOVE more than anything to overturn that norm; that's their freakin' holy grail.

 

[09philj]

And yet Doom is still awesome. If a game is remade in the spirit of the original and isn't simply a retread of the same level design with updated graphics, I say go for it! As for Silent Hill 4, if they fix AI pathing issues, I might try it again. Never could get Eileen through a level unscathed so i got stuck with one of the bad endings.

DOOM is a good target for a remake because it was ambitious enough to be limited by the tech of the time; DOOM and DOOM II don't even have real 3D graphics. The same could be said for Final Fantasy VII, or Quake, or any other game pushing the envelope. If a game was operating comfortably within the boundaries of what was possible and didn't suffer as a result, remaking it serves no particular purpose.