Taking On Remastered Games And The Effects of Nostalgia

Yahtzee Croshaw

New member
Aug 8, 2007
11,049
0
0
Taking On Remastered Games And The Effects of Nostalgia

The glut of remastered games forces Yahtzee to examine the phenomena and determine if they are worth the extra cash ... or even the developer's effort.

Read Full Article
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Remastering games is basically admitting "We can't make a new game that's as high quality as this old game we know people like, so we're just going to re-release it for money."

I don't buy the "we're making it more accessible" excuse either, because in 10 years a game re-released for the PS4 will be just as inaccessible as the original game on the PS1.
 

Ambient_Malice

New member
Sep 22, 2014
836
0
0
One thing worth understanding is ScummVM. ScummVM and the ResidualVM fork are used to run a variety of old P&C games on a variety of platforms. They're not "emulators" per se, but rather engine replacements. It's fairly common for games to feature fixes coded into the program itself. There was a mouse control mod for Grim Fandango on ResidualVM, IIRC.

As for tank controls, The N64 began arguably began the practice of taking games and giving them (possibly optional) fully analogue/non-tank controls. Resident Evil 2 and Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine come to mind. Certainly, the new controls in RE: Remake Give Us More Money Edition are lifted from the N64 Resident Evil 2.

edit:
Releasing a new version on a game on a console platform such as XBLA is a great way for the new version to vanish in a few years. People will still be playing the N64 Perfect Dark in 20 years. Will they be playing the fancy remaster/remake XBLA 60fps version after Microsoft implodes and all the Xbox servers go down? The answer to that question likely depends on whether the games are archived and/or the console has been emulated.
 

darkalter2000

New member
Sep 11, 2013
4
0
0
I feel like you are disregarding people who didn't play the game the first time around. Perhaps because they didn't have a PC, or maybe they just weren't born yet, but for whatever reason a game past them by. The remaster may come about by nostalgia but it introduces new people to the game. And I personally would like a crack at games I was too young for the first time around, but consider far too difficult to get running.
 

silver wolf009

[[NULL]]
Jan 23, 2010
3,432
0
0
An aspect I think was left out was the resurgence that a multiplayer aspect might get from a remastered rerelease.

Example: AVP 2, from 2001.



I love this game to death, and now that the master server's down, and my disc is cracked on one edge, I can never play it again. And even if I could, I'd have nothing but the empty maps, taunting me with the good times I had way back when.

But what if all of a sudden, this game popped up on Steam? Suddenly not only can I play it again, but everyone can play it again, and ba-bam, there's new blood in the ranks and it's time to relive the past.
 

Ambient_Malice

New member
Sep 22, 2014
836
0
0
silver wolf009 said:
An aspect I think was left out was the resurgence that a multiplayer aspect might get from a remastered rerelease.

Example: AVP 2, from 2001.



I love this game to death, and now that the master server's down, and my disc is cracked on one edge, I can never play it again. And even if I could, I'd have nothing but the empty maps, taunting me with the good times I had way back when.

But what if all of a sudden, this game popped up on Steam? Suddenly not only can I play it again, but everyone can play it again, and ba-bam, there's new blood in the ranks and it's time to relive the past.
I'm pretty sure that's not a remaster. It's literally the exact same game with no CD check.

Unless the source code was tinkered with to fix things.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
I'm fearful for the days when the classics of the last few years start being considered for being updated to newer consoles and PC rigs, but there will still be a desire to see Grim Fandango and Farenheit and such games on current systems. We'll reach the point where the schedule will end up like:
Week 1: AAA/Indie game.
Week 2: Remaster game.
Week 3: AAA/Indie game.
Week 4: Remaster game.

And so on until it gets even more crowded.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
Evonisia, here is your worst fear.... it has already happened.

The Last of Us on PS3: June 14, 2013
The Last of Us on PS4: July 29, 2014

That is ridiculous. The Last of Us didn't need a new one right away. Maybe at the end of the PS4's life cycle when it would have looked even better and some of the design flaws could have been fixed.
 

Travis Fischer

New member
Feb 1, 2012
126
0
0
I've got nothing against emulators, but I don't really have anything against paying for the same game multiple times either. When you get right down to it, every new Pokemon game is little more than a prettier and more user friendly version of the previous one, so it's not like there's a huge difference between that and a new port of Resident Evil.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
FoolKiller said:
Evonisia, here is your worst fear.... it has already happened.

The Last of Us on PS3: June 14, 2013
The Last of Us on PS4: July 29, 2014

That is ridiculous. The Last of Us didn't need a new one right away. Maybe at the end of the PS4's life cycle when it would have looked even better and some of the design flaws could have been fixed.
Same with Tomb Raider, Saints Row IV, Halo 4 (as part of the MCC), among others. I'm just going to assume that this is a transitional thing and the glut will calm down in a few years, and then the nightmare shall begin as we port the hot games to the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Another One.
 

flying_whimsy

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,077
0
0
Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Once a creation has been released, bought and critiqued and become part of our shared culture, then the creator has no right to dictate how the audience are permitted to enjoy it
I am so glad I'm not the only person that thinks this. I've been saying it since 1997 and everyone I've ever talked to looked at me like I grew a second head. After a certain point, it belongs to the fans just as much as it does the original creator.

I'm not a fan of remastering either: I'm not sure I would enjoy psychonauts as much if the controls and bugs were cleaned up such that the meat circus hadn't made me want to break controller in half.
 

bam13302

New member
Dec 8, 2009
617
0
0
There is one thing I can personally say in favor of remastering, it helps people play a game they dont have nostalgia for because they didnt play it when it first released (didnt know about it, didnt know it was good, came out before they got into computers, etc..)
I know that has happened to me before. Homeworld is a game I have been suggested to play repeatedly and even have a copy of it borrowed from a friend, but VMs hate games (and vice-versa), and I just didnt have the energy or motivation to install something that doesn't want to install on my systems, especially if I dont already have nostalgia to play it; however, with it coming out on steam, compatible with my OS, and with improved graphics, I no longer have an excuse not to try it and may get to experience a good game I never would have otherwise (that also assumes that the remaster is actually good).
With that said, I see no reason to remaster a game unless the original no longer runs on modern systems, and even so, it is touchy. Remastering is not always the best (or even a necessary) option. Example for this is Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries, a good game for its time and was a great choice to re-release it for free with updates to make it compatible with modern systems [as well as a few other tweaks] while making MWO (though I do wish it was the whole Mechwarrior 4 series, if not the whole mech series they re-released, but now I'm just getting greedy), and although they could have done major graphics overhauls, the original game was great as it was and what they did was great, and got everyone's pallet wet for MWO.
 

Leonardo Huizar

New member
Jul 1, 2012
187
0
0
Im remembering a quote that fits with the semi-extortion of the Gaming industry and its re-releases.

"Nostalgia is heroin for old people." Dara O'Brien, Gamer & Comedian
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
I dunno, different remasters have different levels of effort put into 'em, and as such can be of varying quality compared to the original. On the best end of the spectrum you've got games like Majora's Mask 3D, which reworked most of its graphics, improved the sample quality of its music (still not orchestra recordings, but definitely sounds better, especially for string instruments), improved the controls, ran at a mostly steady 30fps (original couldn't even maintain 20fps most of the time), added new usability features to improve the flow of the game, and remade the bosses nearly from scratch. These are rare, and tread the narrow line between remaster and remake, and really are worth the money IMO (assuming the game is any good in the first place).

A step down from that, you've got remasters like Final Fantasy X HD, Resident Evil 4, and Metal Gear Solid: HD Collection, which improve some textures that especially need it, and add lighting and performance improvements here and there. These are great for people who missed the games the first time around, but maybe not worth the investment unless it's one of your absolute favorite games.

A step lower still is the no effort but technically functional "remasters", nothing but ports by a different name. These pretty much don't change anything but the game's native resolution, and possibly an improved framerate if it's on a newer system. This is the Steam version of Final Fantasy VII, the PS3 version of God of War, and virtually every Dreamcast game that Sega has brought to PC in the last few years. You're often just as well off buying a used copy of the original, ripping the disc to your PC, and emulating it, assuming you can find it cheap enough. Really, these are only worth it if the original is rare, or for a system that can't be emulated well.

Then there's the bottom tier. The ones that, in spite of some nominal improvements, are somehow worse than the original. These are games like Chrono Trigger for the PlayStation, which added unnecessary FMV cutscenes and severe load time problems, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater HD, which managed to completely fuck up its physics, Silent Hill 2 HD with its severe performance problems and mis-rendered effects, and the Steam version of Sonic Adventure which has more problems than I can count and is pretty much inferior in every way to the Dreamcast version.

Ultimately, not everyone had the chance to play every game the first time around. Some people were too young, some were too wrapped up in other games at the time, and some simply missed 'em. I will never begrudge studios for remastering their games in and of itself, for making older games more available to new audiences. I think it's too much to expect every company to put in the same level of effort that Nintendo and Grezzo put into MM3D, but as long as a remaster is done with a modicum of care, I'm fine with the concept. After all, nobody's forcing me to rebuy games I already completed just because they're available on a new system. As long as they're held accountable for crap remasters like Silent Hill 2, I'm happy.

P.S. Thanks

P.P.S. Edit:
FoolKiller said:
That is ridiculous. The Last of Us didn't need a new one right away. Maybe at the end of the PS4's life cycle when it would have looked even better and some of the design flaws could have been fixed.
The Last of Us served an alternate purpose: Porting the engine to the PS4 so they could use it for other things, and so that their devs could gain PS4 experience. While the game didn't necessarily need one, doing so has played a fairly significant role in the development of Uncharted 4, which they hope will be better because of the time and experience invested in The Last of Us Remastered. This is also why it was done by the original devs instead of handed to an external company like remasters usually are.
 

CoyoteSans

New member
Feb 24, 2015
1
0
0
I question all these people saying "the creators have no right to 'improve' these old classic games"... and yet may have heavily-modded Oblivion or Skyrim installs, and when asked why will respond "the mods fix the game to the way it should have been in the first place." What's the difference between people using popular mods for a game and a company releasing a remastered edition?

Heck, we already have a prime case study for this: the Baldur's Gate games. They're right up there with the Elder Scrolls games in terms of modding community, and they received remastered editions a few years ago. True, the "remastered editions" are mostly just the GOG versions with a pre-selected mod set (and the manner in which these mods were implemented is subject to some debate), but the point remains: what makes modding the original superior to buying the remaster? Choice, in that the individual user can pick and choose what "improvements" he or she desires?
 

Bad Jim

New member
Nov 1, 2010
1,763
0
0
FoolKiller said:
Evonisia, here is your worst fear.... it has already happened.

The Last of Us on PS3: June 14, 2013
The Last of Us on PS4: July 29, 2014
What if someone has a PS4 but not a PS3 and wants to play the game? That's a port not a remake.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
Ah, Yahtzee. You and I wish to live in the same world. A world where I can play my PlayStataion and PS2 games on my PS3, or at the very least on the PS4. But alas, we are dreamers. We keep asking for it, and we keep getting shouted down. "It costs money! Just plug in your old system! Switch the PC!" But I refuse to give up the dream. Perhaps one day, the ability to play games from multiple systems on one system will come. One day...