What game deserves a remake?

[The-Fiction]

Please, pretty please? The public needs to be reminded what really happens when you throw vampires into sunlight and the joys of convoluted plots served with ambiguously British accents.

Oh good god this! I need to replay this game... Add in a better save system, some updated graphics and some other shiny things and I will be a happy chappy.

Also means I won't be crapping myself when playing it since I was 9 when it originally came out and back then even a slightly creepy game had me terrified...

 

[GudangGaram]

Baldur's Gate Trilogy with the 3.5e rules in full-HD

 

[Chin_Sack]

I REALLY want to see a remake of "Road Rash", and "Killer Instinct". Ohhhh and "Jade Cocoon"!!!!

 

[Gecko clown]

Time Splitters 2.

I at least want a downloadable version.

 

[thePyro_13]

I could go for a dungeon keeper remake(dungeons was terrible).

 

[oddball250]

all 6 orignal spyro games, make the last threes graphic look like the first three and then make them HD

 

[Saika Renegade]

Gundam Side Story 0079 for the Dreamcast.

That it played as well as it did was a pleasant surprise, and I've always been one to enjoy the B plots as much as the actual focuses of a series (in this case, being set on Earth with mostly massed produced units versus the original anime's focus on a single super prototype). I'd like to see the mechsim-type game recover from its current barren state.

 

[endtherapture]

Baldur's Gate Trilogy with the 3.5e rules in full-HD

No. 2nd Edition was a masterpiece, BG would be ruined by any other edition than 2nd.

 

[Manji187]

I'm still waiting for Resident Evil 2 and 3 to get the RE 1 treatment *Grumble Grumble*

Same here man, same here. But it seems parts 4 and 5 have thrown a wrench in the works. "Over the shoulder" is apparently the future, as is hectic, action-oriented gameplay instead of the traditional survival horror. It's the same "mass-appeal" philosophy you see in the whole industry these days. "Classic-style" RE is a now a niche, i.e. not profitable enough.

Still, don't dismiss the abandonment of fixed-perspective for "mass appeal" as even the most bohemian games have gone full 3D, no one is using fixed perspective any more. The thing was RE-style "3D over 2D background" was used in PS1 era because of the hardware limitations and the artistic desire to have detailed and visually compelling environments.

Remember, the terrifying Silent Hill series has had a free following camera, developers just have to be a bit more creative with camera positioning. Also consider Fatal Frame and Clock Tower series. Gears of war and Uncharted have shown how much you can do moving the camera around to show off things, croping shots and so on. Hell, Condemned showed what an utterly terrifying game you can make even in the first-person perspective! And oh. my. god. Amnesia: Dark Descent! That's a first person game and is too scary to play, really.

Yeah, tension or horror are not inherently limited nor dependant on perspective.

I may be wrong but here's how I see the issue of fixed perspective; it was an inherent part of gameplay, not just a design decision.

The fixed perspective enforced a certain claustrophobia, it basically told you: Be careful, movement space is limited, so use what you have wisely. It also added to the tension when you heard things off camera (fear of what is there but you cannot see, yet). You had to learn to properly maneuver the character and remain vigilant so as not to be caught off guard.

Resident Evil 4 then gave you way more space and a greater field of vision, so it naturally had to use more and faster enemies to keep the tension up. Where 2-3 zombies in a tight space could make you shit bricks in RE 1-3, 2-3 regular Ganados in RE4 are a cakewalk....also because you have a knife that can make them stagger and a Kick/ Supplex move that you can't get hit out of (but which you can use to evade attacks). Add to that all the environmental advantages (ladders, ledges, fences and doors) and you simply don't have to worry about ammo whereas ammo management was also a factor that added to tension in classic RE's.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Yeaaah, except System Shock 2 was far from perfect, not least of which was the dissolving guns that made them simply not worth the inventory space. And all the enemies were so similar, just use the wrench constantly.

It is not like it is required by law that you MUST include Regenerating health and quicktime event.

I get what you are saying, by dogmatically refusing ANY changes you can avoid the horrors of Regenerating health and other modern bullshit crutches, but then you are denying yourself genuine improvements.

Now Ken Levine introduced the gun-dissolving to get players to use the psionic powers (proto-plasmids) more often, but even he admitted that this went to far an unbalanced the game. Another take on this would be a great opportunity to improve the game giving POSITIVE incentive to use psionics, rather than negative punishment for using guns.

The grid inventory could be improved to be like Minecraft, where every item only takes up one space on the grid but and size/weight of items limits how many times items can be stacked. SO you can only stack 4 rockets on one slot but 256 bullet on the same slot.

I don't recall ever saying that SS2 was perfect. Way to assume.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you change too much, it's not the same game, and as such, NOT a remake. Like it or not, the mechanics you mentioned are part of the game. Some of which for "balancing" reasons (like the weapon maintenance) and some for story (there was actually a reason all the enemies were so similar...). They may not have made it perfect, but they did make it what it was, and it was a classic. Change too much about it, and at that point it's a reinterpretation. Frankly, I don't see the addition of modern mechanics to be genuine improvements. Modern games aren't bad, don't get me wrong, but they make a lot of sacrifices in order to 'appeal to the masses' - changes that older games didn't make. I grew up with those older games, and would MUCH prefer their complexity and length over today's simplicity and 'short, but pretty!'

Besides, one of the perks of being a PC gamer is that if you don't like something about the game such as the weapon degradation (which though I didn't like it at the time, it never hindered me from playing gun-oriented play-throughs - of which I did many) you can always just edit it out on your own.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

A Deus Ex HD remake would be awesome, given the success of Human Revolution.

 

[DoctorSun]

Crash Bandicoot remade as a downloadable would be great. Maybe some redemption for the name after the more recent games...

 

[Treblaine]

I'm still waiting for Resident Evil 2 and 3 to get the RE 1 treatment *Grumble Grumble*

Same here man, same here. But it seems parts 4 and 5 have thrown a wrench in the works. "Over the shoulder" is apparently the future, as is hectic, action-oriented gameplay instead of the traditional survival horror. It's the same "mass-appeal" philosophy you see in the whole industry these days. "Classic-style" RE is a now a niche, i.e. not profitable enough.

Still, don't dismiss the abandonment of fixed-perspective for "mass appeal" as even the most bohemian games have gone full 3D, no one is using fixed perspective any more. The thing was RE-style "3D over 2D background" was used in PS1 era because of the hardware limitations and the artistic desire to have detailed and visually compelling environments.

Remember, the terrifying Silent Hill series has had a free following camera, developers just have to be a bit more creative with camera positioning. Also consider Fatal Frame and Clock Tower series. Gears of war and Uncharted have shown how much you can do moving the camera around to show off things, croping shots and so on. Hell, Condemned showed what an utterly terrifying game you can make even in the first-person perspective! And oh. my. god. Amnesia: Dark Descent! That's a first person game and is too scary to play, really.

Yeah, tension or horror are not inherently limited nor dependant on perspective.

I may be wrong but here's how I see the issue of fixed perspective; it was an inherent part of gameplay, not just a design decision.

The fixed perspective enforced a certain claustrophobia, it basically told you: Be careful, movement space is limited, so use what you have wisely. It also added to the tension when you heard things off camera (fear of what is there but you cannot see, yet). You had to learn to properly maneuver the character and remain vigilant so as not to be caught off guard.

Resident Evil 4 then gave you way more space and a greater field of vision, so it naturally had to use more and faster enemies to keep the tension up. Where 2-3 zombies in a tight space could make you shit bricks in RE 1-3, 2-3 regular Ganados in RE4 are a cakewalk....also because you have a knife that can make them stagger and a Kick/ Supplex move that you can't get hit out of (but which you can use to evade attacks). Add to that all the environmental advantages (ladders, ledges, fences and doors) and you simply don't have to worry about ammo whereas ammo management was also a factor that added to tension in classic RE's.

Well that still does not consider why NO ONE is doing fix perspective survival-horror games any more.

Importantly, it does not consider how many developers have succeeded in making excellent survival-horror games even with a dynamic camera and even a camera perspective you have 100% control over.

On a counter point, Dino Crisis 2 had a fixed perspective and that wasn't remotely survival-horror, it was straight up action shooter and quite a good one at that, even with the fixed perspective from the 2D painted backgrounds.

You talk about so many aspects of Resident Evil 4 OTHER than the camera direction that made it less survival-horror:
-Field of vision = can be reduced by dialling down FOV (this is something inherent in the rendering, not viewpoint position) or moving camera in or out from character, dynamical under developer control to suit tone
-Kick/suplex moves = are not inherent, they can me removed (Resident Evil had the "side items" for close encounters and was still survival horror)
-Environmental advantages = again were in previous Resident Evil games but are not inherent to dynamic/controlling the camera direction
-too much ammo = again, this can be reduced to increase challenge

The problem with fixed perspective is depending on that for claustrophobia can all too easily end up more frustrating than fighting. The fact that your character can be looking dead ahead right at a threat yet you can't see it just emphasises how you are basically remote controlling a blind person, hard to suspend your disbelief of personal peril. It's a lot less cut and dry than just correlating a rendering decision made in the mid 90's to a distinct art style.

Don't underestimate the power of immersion in perspective. Even beyond Amnesia Dark Decent's utter terror, Half Life 2's Ravenholm was scary with hardly any ammo, dark so many places your field of view was narrowed to the width of your torch beam, you had to depend on the awkward gravity gun to kill the headcrab zombies, who were still as slow as Resident Evil zombies... only you couldn't see one sneaking up beside you!

You of course can make a good survival horror game without the fixed-perspective for each screen (a la Resident Evil 1-3), there are so many examples, not least of which include Dead Space, System Shock 2, Cryostasis, Condemned, Penumbra series, etc.

 

[Treblaine]

Yeaaah, except System Shock 2 was far from perfect, not least of which was the dissolving guns that made them simply not worth the inventory space. And all the enemies were so similar, just use the wrench constantly.

It is not like it is required by law that you MUST include Regenerating health and quicktime event.

I get what you are saying, by dogmatically refusing ANY changes you can avoid the horrors of Regenerating health and other modern bullshit crutches, but then you are denying yourself genuine improvements.

Now Ken Levine introduced the gun-dissolving to get players to use the psionic powers (proto-plasmids) more often, but even he admitted that this went to far an unbalanced the game. Another take on this would be a great opportunity to improve the game giving POSITIVE incentive to use psionics, rather than negative punishment for using guns.

The grid inventory could be improved to be like Minecraft, where every item only takes up one space on the grid but and size/weight of items limits how many times items can be stacked. SO you can only stack 4 rockets on one slot but 256 bullet on the same slot.

I don't recall ever saying that SS2 was perfect. Way to assume.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you change too much, it's not the same game, and as such, NOT a remake. Like it or not, the mechanics you mentioned are part of the game. Some of which for "balancing" reasons (like the weapon maintenance) and some for story (there was actually a reason all the enemies were so similar...). They may not have made it perfect, but they did make it what it was, and it was a classic. Change too much about it, and at that point it's a reinterpretation. Frankly, I don't see the addition of modern mechanics to be genuine improvements. Modern games aren't bad, don't get me wrong, but they make a lot of sacrifices in order to 'appeal to the masses' - changes that older games didn't make. I grew up with those older games, and would MUCH prefer their complexity and length over today's simplicity and 'short, but pretty!'

Besides, one of the perks of being a PC gamer is that if you don't like something about the game such as the weapon degradation (which though I didn't like it at the time, it never hindered me from playing gun-oriented play-throughs - of which I did many) you can always just edit it out on your own.

I don't believe any part of my argument assumed you did think System Shock 2 was perfect. Though you did say

"I want a graphical update, and nothing more... I wouldn't buy it if I found out they reworked the story or added in bullshit like quick-time events and regenerating health."

You wanted NOTHING more than graphical update, and merely gave examples of bullshit. I agree those gameplay elements are bullshit. But I do think that we have made SOME progress in this industry, even if it may at times seem like one step forward and two steps back that doesn't mean we should ignore the steps forward.

"it's not the same game, and as such, NOT a remake."

But a remake is not the same game. It's a remake. It has been RE-made!

I think you are talking about a enhanced "re-release".

"there was actually a reason all the enemies were so similar"

I would object that plot details are no excuse for lack of variety in challenge, not in amount of challenge but type of challenge. The plot should have worked to include more variety.

"Frankly, I don't see the addition of modern mechanics to be genuine improvements... they make a lot of sacrifices in order to 'appeal to the masses'"

I think these more than appeal to the masses, they appeal to the core as well. No need to bring in the "masses" in here, any SS2 remake would be for a core niche, a core niche that would greatly appreciate an improved take on balancing and variety. I hope you read the part where I said the balancing should be a mixture of carrot and stick, while SS2 was too much stick and not enough carrot. That is not some "modern" thing. Games, including PC games, have been doing that since the 1980's.

True, the most popular mod on SS2 is to remove weapon degradation. But that brings up an important point of affecting game balance. Balance goes both ways, if weapon degradation is gone or severely reduced then how do you balance it out? Balance would be to alter the scarcity of ammunition, or buff the psionics.

This is going pretty deep for a mod. Of course some people may be charitable enough with their time, but they may not.

I think System Shock 2 fans need to be more open to the idea of a professional and comprehensive remake. Not with "modern gameplay elements" (what a loaded term) but merely with the benefit of hindsight and feedback.

You have to have a bit of faith. I know after all the butchery of things like Star Wars you

But i'm much rather George lucas REMADE the original trilogy for better or worse than try to bastardise the original with a dozen little alterations. System Shock 2 will ALWAYS exist. And it is because of that a remake should go with full commitment to doing it better. Look at how successful it has been with film, some of Hitchcock's most successful films were remakes of his earlier works often with the same title. Painters are known to base new work of copying old work but in a new and radically different way.

But the original will always exists.

 

[Manji187]

Well that still does not consider why NO ONE is doing fix perspective survival-horror games any more.

Perhaps because many people have come to consider it to be frustrating for the reason you have stated?

The problem with fixed perspective is depending on that for claustrophobia can all too easily end up more frustrating than fighting. The fact that your character can be looking dead ahead right at a threat yet you can't see it just emphasises how you are basically remote controlling a blind person, hard to suspend your disbelief of personal peril.

I can imagine that it can be "frustrating" at times (especially in the beginning when someone is learning to play the game), but the situations you mention are not downright unfair/ impossible/ unavoidable from a gameplay perspective. Yeah, many will have a bit of trial and error, so what? It's part of the challenge and increases the tension.

Suspension of disbelief? Really? Come on man, every game is limited by its design choices and no game, except for driving and flight simulators, tries to achieve perfect adherence to all natural laws (physics, optics, and whatnot).

Importantly, it does not consider how many developers have succeeded in making excellent survival-horror games even with a dynamic camera and even a camera perspective you have 100% control over.

Look, I'm not arguing that the fixed perspective is THE ONE AND ONLY for survival horror, I was just trying to show how it added to the tension/ horror BECAUSE OF its fixedness; it stands for a lack of total control. It makes you feel somewhat helpless. Other survival horror games achieve this "helplessness" in other ways.

As to Resident Evil 4's "over the shoulder" view: without messing with rendering settings, just taking the default settings, do you agree that you see a lot more of your surroundings? That your awareness is therefore potentially larger, i.e. less chance to be surprised/ ambushed (if one stays alert)? In RE 1-3 a change of perspective could reveal the presence and/ or proximity of danger, possibly necessitating a quick response. Sure, one could get ambushed from behind in RE4 but that would be completely on the person in question: he or she did not stay mobile and/ or did not glance back once in a while.

Apparently you haven't considered how the very perspective in RE4 enables and enhances the effectiveness of the kick/ supplex moves and the (higher) potential for exploitation of environmental advantages. The perspective is decisively in the player's favor in RE4, not so (or not always) in RE1-3.

The side items in RE Remake were a last resort, in short supply and you couldn't aim them. If you were good, you could play through the game without using them. Try playing RE4 without the knife and kick/ supplex. Not impossible but WAY harder (especially on higher difficulty settings with less ammo), which is an indicator that you are expected to make REGULAR use of them.

Basically, empowerment reduces horror. And Leon in RE4 is fairly empowered, to a great extent because of the change in perspective (and the things it enabled him to do).

 

[figday]

- Morrowind & Daggerfall
- Freelancer (with a sequel or an expansion)
- Dragon Age 2 (because it doesn't deserve the DA title)
- Deus Ex (duh..)
- DN3D
- Crysis 2 (it suffered consolitis)
- Dark Reign
- Silent Hill
- System Shock 2
- RE 1 and 2
- Parasite Eve

I guess that's all for now

 

[srm79]

X-Wing and TIE Fighter would be my immediate choices, but one game I've always thought would be great if someone would pick up and run with a remake is B-17: The Mighty Eighth. I know it would probably be something of a niche title, but it was a fucking awesome game that could really draw you in. The box made it look like a flight simulator, but it really was so much more than that.

I still have it and play it regularly. Anyone who saw and enjoyed Memphis Belle must get their hands on this.

 

[captaincabbage]

I'd personally go for a game they could really remake brilliantly with today's tech; Future Cop L.A.P.D.

Seriously, has anyone here ever played Future Cop? It was one of the most badass games on the PS1 back in the day and honestly the ONLY reason it diodn't sell like hotcakes was because EA had no faith in the game and didn't advertise it. Thus, it was left backstage to rot, taking a whole possible franchise of awesomeness with it.

 

[Treblaine]

Well that still does not consider why NO ONE is doing fix perspective survival-horror games any more.

Perhaps because many people have come to consider it to be frustrating for the reason you have stated?

The problem with fixed perspective is depending on that for claustrophobia can all too easily end up more frustrating than fighting. The fact that your character can be looking dead ahead right at a threat yet you can't see it just emphasises how you are basically remote controlling a blind person, hard to suspend your disbelief of personal peril.

I can imagine that it can be "frustrating" at times (especially in the beginning when someone is learning to play the game), but the situations you mention are not downright unfair/ impossible/ unavoidable from a gameplay perspective. Yeah, many will have a bit of trial and error, so what? It's part of the challenge and increases the tension.

Suspension of disbelief? Really? Come on man, every game is limited by its design choices and no game, except for driving and flight simulators, tries to achieve perfect adherence to all natural laws (physics, optics, and whatnot).

Importantly, it does not consider how many developers have succeeded in making excellent survival-horror games even with a dynamic camera and even a camera perspective you have 100% control over.

Look, I'm not arguing that the fixed perspective is THE ONE AND ONLY for survival horror, I was just trying to show how it added to the tension/ horror BECAUSE OF its fixedness; it stands for a lack of total control. It makes you feel somewhat helpless. Other survival horror games achieve this "helplessness" in other ways.

As to Resident Evil 4's "over the shoulder" view: without messing with rendering settings, just taking the default settings, do you agree that you see a lot more of your surroundings? That your awareness is therefore potentially larger, i.e. less chance to be surprised/ ambushed (if one stays alert)? In RE 1-3 a change of perspective could reveal the presence and/ or proximity of danger, possibly necessitating a quick response. Sure, one could get ambushed from behind in RE4 but that would be completely on the person in question: he or she did not stay mobile and/ or did not glance back once in a while.

Apparently you haven't considered how the very perspective in RE4 enables and enhances the effectiveness of the kick/ supplex moves and the (higher) potential for exploitation of environmental advantages. The perspective is decisively in the player's favor in RE4, not so (or not always) in RE1-3.

Basically, empowerment reduces horror. And Leon in RE4 is fairly empowered, to a great extent because of the change in perspective (and the things it enabled him to do).

I believe suspension of disbelief is important in almost all works of fiction, as if it is "just a video game" or "just a movie" or "just a book" then really it shouldn't affect you. The thing is even someone simply reading printed words can have people gripped with fear, fired with excitement or even aroused. Part of that is "getting into it", immersion, the commitment. Perfect adherence to natural laws ain't part of it, you can suspend you disbelief in a Tolkien type magical world or in a space opera like Star Wars.

I agree with you on challenge and tension, but depending on the challenge being in artificially basic controls rather than GENUINELY challenging enemies is where people have found much frustration.

The problem is not MERELY the controls getting too advanced but the controls getting to advanced yet the enemies remaining unchallenging. Half Life 2's Ravenholm I found as scary if not scarier than fighting the best foes of Silent Hill or classic Resident Evil, and this was in a first person perspective with mouse aim and really responsive and accurate controls. It was things like the poison headcrabs, the fast zombies, the use of light and dark.

I have to admit, playing Resident Evil 1, 2 and 3 near the end of the game I had such an arsenal of weapons there was no tension, there was no feeling of helplessness, even the end boss wasn't too bad. The perspective didn't help. The perspective MANDATED auto-aim that was all too easily abused with the more powerful weapons.

Thing about an "in line" perspective is you have the challenge of having to actually aim at enemies. Now was there really a "challenge" with a fixed-perspective, or was it more frustrating that the limited control-style meant you were forced to fight and kill (easily with auto-aim) an enemy you can't reasonably see - through your character is looking directly at it.

I still enjoy the classic Resident Evil games, I bought each for around $6 on my PSP but I wouldn't pay $60 for a modern game so limited. I accept this old game, now greatly marked down in price as working with the limitations of the age.

Yes, Resident Evil 4 had some flaws that meant kick/suplex could be exploited, but the developers were explicitly not trying to make a "Survival Horror" game in the first place. they were trying to make an action-adventure game with macabre elements! It wasn't that the perspective somehow sabotaged the ideal of Survival-Horror, that was not their aim! Empowerment was the intention.

Silent Hill, with dynamic perspective was not empowering.

 

[Dfskelleton]

If they could effectively remaster this game in 3D, while maintaining the disturbing art style and overall feel of the game, along with a bit better voice acting (just for Nimdok and some of the NPCs), then I would be a truly happy person.
C'mon, it would be the perfect XBLA/PSN release. Artsy games have a tendency to do really well on those platforms.
Also, a reboot of the Blood franchise would be nice. Just get Caleb's original voice actor back.