How do you feel about all these remakes and remasters that are coming out?

[Garwoofoo]

16 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Let’s not forget all the Wii U ‘remasters’ either, I’m thankful I got to play those on Switch having never owned a Wii U, and they are all better in some way or other, the Mario 3D World being notable for adding an entirely new expansion which on its own could have been fleshed out and released separately. 

 

Conversely, as someone who did own a Wii U, the Switch has been very underwhelming as a huge chunk of Nintendo's output this gen has simply been full-price re-releases of games I played years ago. I'd like to play Bowser's Fury but I'm not paying £50 for another copy of 3D World in order to do so.

 

Microsoft has got it right this gen. Stick an old game in and it not only runs perfectly, it often looks better than it ever did before (higher res, better framerate, HDR - getting all three is not uncommon). You get the original experience but enhanced for modern sensibilities. I've seen full price remasters that are worse than what the Xbox's backward compatibility feature gives people for free.

[Stanley]

6 minutes ago, Garwoofoo said:

 

Conversely, as someone who did own a Wii U, the Switch has been very underwhelming as a huge chunk of Nintendo's output this gen has simply been full-price re-releases of games I played years ago. I'd like to play Bowser's Fury but I'm not paying £50 for another copy of 3D World in order to do so.

I might feel that way a bit if I had owned a Wii U, then again I’m struggling to get through all the Switch exclusives as it is, it’s not as if it’s lacking in original titles. They seem to be done with Wii U games now anyway, can’t remember when the last one was. 
 

BTW if you get the chance, either in a sale or a second hand copy, I’d strongly recommend Bowser’s Fury as it’s truly excellent. 

[englishbob]

Not quick enough in Elden Rings case

[Vemsie]

I don't mind them at all, they trend to be amazing games made even better (and more available). Demon's Souls, RE2 Remake and The Last of Us Part 1 are all sublime games and better than the original. Mario 3D World not only reaches a new audience, but it also came with the superb Bowser's Fury. Both Dead Space and RE4 look excellent, with the former especially having some very interesting improvements like a completely explorable Ishimura and a scare director. 
I don't see the problem, as we're not exactly starved of good new games (just look at EDGE this month) and many of these games are made by studios who specialize in them (like Bluepoint or Nixxes).

[ScouserInExile]

I think they can only be good things. There are plenty of amazing games that just aren't accessable now. Either due to only being playable on old hardware, requiring emulation or having eye bleeding visuals from the early days of 3D. Re-releasing them with either updated visuals, bug fixes and QoL changes or just adding that extra layer of home gaming convenience that we've come to expect makes them available for nostalgic gamers and a new audience alike. And they could potentially revive dead franchises.

 

I've only played one of the proper remasters - the Tony Hawk's remake / remaster / whatever - and I think it's utterly fantastic. Plus I've really enjoyed stuff like the Capcom beat em up and fighting game bundle releases.

 

And I just don't buy the "stifling creativity" type arguments. There's not really a limited space for games, the new and interesting can get released along side the remakes and remasters. There are companies and teams within companies that will specialise in producing remastered games. Even back when I worked in games in the 90s and early 00s, there were plenty of companies that did nothing but ports of existing games, it's nothing new. And it's not stopping creative types being creative.

 

So I'm all in favour of them.

[Graham S]

I'm primarily not interested in them for nostalgia. For me it's mostly stuff I haven't got around to yet, or started and haven't got closed to finishing. Then a stray thought or a podcast makes me think about the game, and when I want to play it I want to play it in the best form available to me. Whether that's a remake, a remaster, or Xbox magic I don't really care, I just pop on a forum like this, someone will say which version is the good one, I play that one, not particularly caring if it's 20 years old or 20 days old.

[Gabe]

1 hour ago, ScouserInExile said:

I think they can only be good things. There are plenty of amazing games that just aren't accessable now. Either due to only being playable on old hardware, requiring emulation or having eye bleeding visuals from the early days of 3D. Re-releasing them with either updated visuals, bug fixes and QoL changes or just adding that extra layer of home gaming convenience that we've come to expect makes them available for nostalgic gamers and a new audience alike. And they could potentially revive dead franchises.

 

I've only played one of the proper remasters - the Tony Hawk's remake / remaster / whatever - and I think it's utterly fantastic. Plus I've really enjoyed stuff like the Capcom beat em up and fighting game bundle releases.

 

And I just don't buy the "stifling creativity" type arguments. There's not really a limited space for games, the new and interesting can get released along side the remakes and remasters. There are companies and teams within companies that will specialise in producing remastered games. Even back when I worked in games in the 90s and early 00s, there were plenty of companies that did nothing but ports of existing games, it's nothing new. And it's not stopping creative types being creative.

 

So I'm all in favour of them.

This post, for me, does highlight the bad aspects. 

 

Firstly, why do games in particular feel they always need to pander to the nostalgia? It's incredibly prevalent, more so than other media, I would guess.

 

Secondly, how many of the various remakes/remasters have actually led to dead (or dormant) franchises actually being revived? I can't think of any, though there may be some. Obviously, in the case of a number of these, the games aren't even old enough to have been forgotten in the first place.

 

Thirdly, whilst there is no limited space for games, there very much are limited budgets, staff and resources to make them. So dedicating teams to remasters *is* taking people away from other things, even in the case of specialist companies (Bluepoint being a good example, as they are also looking to make some original stuff IIRC?)

 

I get that some companies are set up basically to remake stuff, but those people could in theory be employed doing something new, were gamers not so obsessed over seeing another version of Resident Evil 4 instead.

[earlymodernsteve]

7 minutes ago, Gabe said:

Firstly, why do games in particular feel they always need to pander to the nostalgia? It's incredibly prevalent, more so than other media, I would guess.

I'm not sure this is necessarily the case, just that the ability to play older games has previously been far more complex than other media. Books have been engaged in direct or implicit nostalgia since forever, music goes in clear cycles, film sees revivals, remakes etc. Gaming just requires a more transparent level of coding or porting work that is used to justify the price of these projects.

[JoeK]

I'm well up for most remasters really. I don't think there's much harm in them. I can understand the arguments of them getting in the way of new games being developed, but if it helps rekindle affection for older games that people have missed, then that shouldn't be a bad thing really. 

 

There's plenty I'd jump at the chance of buying should they ever come out (Gears of War 2, I'm looking at you, you fucker), and there's plenty that I don't feel much of a need to buy because I'm happy enough running the original. 

 

What does annoy me is if they do a remaster and leave annoying bugs from the original release in the game. Bugs or quirks. Chief culprit is Mass Effect 3 - would it have killed them to add a 'holster gun' to the skill-set? I mean, I understand Shep's in the middle of an intersteller war for the survival of the species, but running around everywhere with a gun drawn out kind of fucks up the immersion for me a little bit.

 

 

[CarloOos]

Why are Amazon/HMV so full of old films, when they could just be full new films instead?

 

Whinging about remakes and remasters is exactly as stupid as the above statement. There’s also a particular brand of entitlement that seems to go  ‘I played this 20 years ago, I don’t need a remake’ and it’s like, yeah, so what? Lots of people didn’t play it 20 years ago and would otherwise have no way of doing so. It’s one form persevering/archiving experiences that would otherwise be largely forgotten about.
 

The other daft argument is that newer games are slicker mechanically so it’s pointless playing older games, as if the creation of CGI made watching stop-motion films pointless. Plenty of remasters smooth the edges off older games, sometimes it’s for better and sometimes it’s for worse, in much the same way some films held up better on a scuzzy old VHS than they do now in HD. It’s not always an improvement but it doesn’t make the effort redundant, when the alternative is total obscurity.

 

Not every remake is for people who played it the first time. We’re old. Ultimately though I think MS have the right approach here, by future-proofing their catalogue in a way that makes actually re-releasing a title largely redundant.  

[thesnwmn]

1 minute ago, CarloOos said:

Why are Amazon/HMV so full of old films, when they could just be full new films instead?

 

Whinging about remakes and remasters is exactly as stupid as the above statement. There’s also a particular brand of entitlement that seems to go  ‘I played this 20 years ago, I don’t need a remake’ and it’s like, yeah, so what? Lots of people didn’t play it 20 years ago and would otherwise have no way of doing so. It’s one form persevering/archiving experiences that would otherwise be largely forgotten about.
 

The other daft argument is that newer games are slicker mechanically so it’s pointless playing older games, as if the creation of CGI made watching stop-motion films pointless. Plenty of remasters smooth the edges off older games, sometimes it’s for better and sometimes it’s for worse, in much the same way some films held up better on a scuzzy old VHS than they do now in HD. It’s not always an improvement but it doesn’t make the effort redundant, when the alternative is total obscurity.

 

Seriously? They're completely different issues. Filling your store with old films or games is one problem. What developers spend their time making is another. You need to be talking about film studios making remakes.

 

Maybe the equivalent to film is Disney making the live action versions of their animated classics.

 

 

 

I also think it's often not good archiving or preservation imo. It might preserve some ideas but unless it's 1:1 I think it's often creating a different beast.

 

 

Others have mentioned no limits to money and it not preventing creativity but there are limits to consumer spending. People aren't paying for unlimited games. Each remake they buy might one less original title. Remakes on subscription services seem like a good fit though. Unless you're Nintendo and then you charge full wack for them every single generation.

[CarloOos]

31 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

I also think it's often not good archiving or preservation imo. It might preserve some ideas but unless it's 1:1 I think it's often creating a different beast.

You could (and many people do) make the same argument about every single time a film is released on a new format, as there’s always some degree is artistic interpretation/compromise involved in updating something to a technology that hadn’t even been comprehended at the time.
 

There’s good and bad examples of remastering in both gaming and films. But I don’t see anyone seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t attempt to re-release older films, whereas I do semi-regularly see people suggesting that in earnest about games. And in almost all cases I’d still take a less than perfect remaster over nothing at all, should I decide to revisit something. 
 

‘But if some people spend all their money on 4k Dario Argento films, fewer people might go to see Black Panther: Wakanda Forever’. This statement is clearly total nonsense, and I don’t see how it’s any different for games.

[Mogster]

There are any awful lot of them around for sure, but I don't have an issue with their existence. Remasters and rereleases ensure games remain easily available without having to get your hands on older hardware, and remakes can be amazing if done right. 

 

Capcom's Resi remakes are the perfect example really. For a start, they don't seem to be getting in the way of completely fresh Resi experiences, and they genuinely seem to preserve the essence of the originals while making them completely modern in the process. The Resi 2 remake is probably one of my favourite games of recent years.

[Paulando]

Yeah, in all seriousness, it’s a wonderful thing when you have a game released on a modern platform that would otherwise be difficult to play now and/or was marred by performance issues at the time.

 

I barely have enough space/HDMI ports for a couple of consoles, Sky, and Apple TV, so there’s no way I’m getting my Wii U and its four AC adapters, 16 cables, dock, sensor bar, gamepad and all that shit out the loft to play Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze. I appreciate every single Wii U/Switch re-release immensely.

[Luseth]

I have differing views depending on my mood and the day but my current thoughts -

Pros -

- They can result in an incredibly great version of a game, the potential that KOTOR has for example.

- Replaying a game that has been remade or remastered, you always have nostalgia when it comes to old media, if you go back and replay that old game it often does not live up to what's in your head. A good remake can provide the opportunity to enjoy it as you envision it through nostalgic glasses

- They also allow a younger audience to experience games that we enjoyed whilst younger. Generally younger players today would struggle to play say the original KOTOR due to it's graphics and gameplay but this provides them an opportunity to do so and then we can engage with them related to these games

 

Cons -

- Remasters and remakes can be great when done right, but there are often rather lacklustre remasters produced as well in order to make a bit of easy cash. 

- The resource must come from somewhere, ultimately those people remastering a certain game could have been working on something new.

- What the heck is with games being remastered that are under 10 years old? I mean, I get stuff on retro consoles, but anything with a HDMI port, just why?

- Remasters surely do not cost the same as a full game to produce? So why do so many of the remasters seem to retail at full price?

- A remake or remaster takes someone's money, however if that remake or remaster did not exist it might have been spent on a new game, or something more creative or an indie game. It stifles the industry in that it is competing for the same money that a new title is. When a great game comes out it can often be overlooked at launch because people have gone and bought a remake instead.

 

There are pluses and negatives around them, for me it's more negative, it's mostly as far as I can see an easy way for game developers / producers to print money. GTA trilogy for example, did it even look like a remaster had been done to the games? In fact I'm fairly sure they were worse in terms of playability than the originals and yet how much did they charge for it? 

[RubberJohnny]

The argument that it's about preserving games is bunk, surely? Backwards compatibility and remaking things are completely different topics, and you're just trying to deliberately conflate them to avoid acknowledging the problems.

 

If you want old games to be accessible and playable forever on new hardware, Steam's managed that for the last 18 years, and Xbox has managed it on console for the last generation. Just get Sony to do their part!

 

What remakes have actually often done is taken the original version that you claim to be preserving offline and made it unpurchaseable forever for a shittier version with manual signup requirements, no offline mode, a bunch of changes, and a 30x markup: exhibit A being GTA Remastered, but there have been plenty more. Can't have the original selling for £2 on your infinite shelf when we need them to buy Sonic: Origins with it's incredible added feature list like "background animation in the main menu" for a mere additional £38.

 

That's not even getting into the claim that this is all for 'new fans', an opinion some people apparently hold sincerely! Quite how you can think of trailers that just reference fan memes and include pre-order bonuses of stuff like pre-release outfits only seen in game magazine screenshots from 1997 and think "ah yes, this is not for people my age, but for those with no pre-existing familiarity with the material", you must have used media literacy as a dump stat.

[K]

I think people just like playing old games sometimes, and like playing older games where the visuals and frame rate have been beefed up, and where there are a few quality of life improvements. Let's not overcomplicate things.

[CarloOos]

@Rubber_JohnnyThis thread is conflating remasters and remakes and everything inbetween. A proper Resident Evil-style remake is a completely new game (in the sense that all those Disney remakes are completely different films), and not really what most people are discussing here. 

Of course Steam, PC gaming in general and more recently the Xbox platform are all doing an admiral job of forward compatibility. It’s not really relevant if someone wants to play something like Viewtiful Joe though is it? It either gets re-released or forgotten about. 
 

Even the actual Resident Evil remake was limited to the GameCube until a few years ago, when it was remastered for modern hardware. It’s 20 years old and the GameCube wasn’t a huge seller. Plenty of Resident Evil fans, old and new, never played it the first time, now you can play it on almost anything. This is apparently bad for some reason. 

[Quest]

3 hours ago, CarloOos said:

Even the actual Resident Evil remake was limited to the GameCube until a few years ago, when it was remastered for modern hardware. It’s 20 years old and the GameCube wasn’t a huge seller. Plenty of Resident Evil fans, old and new, never played it the first time, now you can play it on almost anything. This is apparently bad for some reason. 

 

It was released on Wii four six years after the Gamecube.

[Keyboard Koala]

On 31/10/2022 at 22:33, Qazimod said:

 

 

That's me told 

 

Only on effin Steam 

 

Hopes dashed.

 

I did find out a Switch version is also in the works.

[dave7g]

Interesting email on this weeks Jeff Gerstmann podcast, asking would it better to remake games that were almost good too. Games that were so close to being great but not quite getting there. They could get there with a remaster. Games like Binary Domain or Alpha Protocol. I'd rather see that kind of remaster than another Last of Us remake in 3 years.

 

[SMD]

On 31/10/2022 at 23:50, Jamie John said:

On the other hand, however, the games in these lists represent a huge amount of talent, man-hours and money that could have been spent on creating new and original experiences for players, as opposed to updating and recreating old ones.

 

 

tbf this is only partially true, even the full remakes don't represent the budget and effort a brand new title costs for various different reasons. just because a game is remade or remastered doesn't mean it's taking resources away from another project - that 'other' project may simply not exist due to the technical requirements or financial risk. remakes also allow for developers to update their tools and expertise with much lower risk than a brand new title or even IP - who's to say that the work on RE4 remake isn't preparing the ground for RE9 in some way?

 

at the end of the day I don't really mind them even if they get as ludicrous as TLOU part 1 because I don't have to buy them and if it's someone else's first time with a game, who am I to deny them.

 

I do appreciate that a lot of these updates either make games playable on modern hardware/standards or help to standardise the experience of playing a whole series - the originals are still there and available for people to enjoy. when they nuke the original, that's when I start to have a problem.

[Talvalin]

On 02/11/2022 at 11:21, dave7g said:

Interesting email on this weeks Jeff Gerstmann podcast, asking would it better to remake games that were almost good too. Games that were so close to being great but not quite getting there. They could get there with a remaster. Games like Binary Domain or Alpha Protocol. I'd rather see that kind of remaster than another Last of Us remake in 3 years.

 

 

I've heard the same argument being made for movie remakes and it holds up. Why remake an excellent film that still stands up now when you could remake something that was good in principle but hamstrung by factors such as poor CGI, studio interference or something else?

[K]

They more or less did that with Mirror’s Edge: Catalyst - it was effectively another crack at the same idea. With similarly mixed results unfortunately. 

[RubberJohnny]

On 02/11/2022 at 02:50, SMD said:

just because a game is remade or remastered doesn't mean it's taking resources away from another project

 

I mean unless they're shutting down the studio instead then it literally is.

 

On 02/11/2022 at 02:50, SMD said:

remakes also allow for developers to update their tools and expertise

 

Can you name one that actually pioneered some new engine or something? This was basically a marketing line from the original Last of Us re-release because they didn't just want to go "yeah we're just filling a gap in the release schedule", but it's not even true generally. Most of these remakes are by experienced or main teams on industry standard engines like Unreal, and I don't think any of them have even bothered to pretend anything similar. Everyone knows the true reason they exist is nostalgia on the consumer side and easy money on the publisher side, I'd have more respect if people just admitted that than tried arguments like this that they don't even believe.

 

On 02/11/2022 at 02:50, SMD said:

at the end of the day I don't really mind them even if they get as ludicrous as TLOU part 1 because I don't have to buy them and if it's someone else's first time with a game, who am I to deny them.

 

Same with this argument, a new game would be everyones first time with a game, so much better at achieving the "enables someone elses first time with a game" thingy you say is their reason to exist.

 

On 02/11/2022 at 02:21, dave7g said:

Interesting email on this weeks Jeff Gerstmann podcast, asking would it better to remake games that were almost good too. Games that were so close to being great but not quite getting there. They could get there with a remaster. Games like Binary Domain or Alpha Protocol. I'd rather see that kind of remaster than another Last of Us remake in 3 years.

 

I dunno, why not just make a new project then? Is there anything inherent in Alpha Protocol that couldn't be done as a new espionage game in that style without needing to tie yourself to an original which not many people played?

 

(I'd actually argue we're well into the mid games being remade, simply because there's been so many of them publishers are well into shuffling down the back of the sofa cushions, I played the Front Mission games a couple of years ago and they're uninteresting 6/10s at best, but they're getting remakes now)

[Fry Crayola]

I felt Catalyst was a weaker game than the first, which is one of my favourite games of the 360 era.

 

But yeah, with the game not having any real narrative connection to the first, it really was a case of "let's do this again, but different". And I do like that approach even if it doesn't pan out.