Necessary remasters

[machomuu]

We talked briefly about remasters in the DCC and brought up a few possible discussion topics. Well, what I'm asking today actually has to do with none of those, if only because it just sprang to mind. There are times when I look back, particularly at the PlayStation One but I think this also applies to games that, during the sixth generation, tried to go for a more "realistic" aesthetic, and find that games and the people in them (or the art, in case of games like FF that had 2D or pre-rendered backgrounds) are really hard to look at. I'm a pretty tolerant guy when it comes to things like this, but I do feel that we do have reason to preserve these things, and update them to the standards of today. It's not always in the case of just art or graphics, sometimes there are design choices as far as the UI or control scheme is concerned that, if remedied, could greatly enhance an experience.

Truth be told, it doesn't take huge changes to make a solid remake. Sometimes the simpler ones can double the joy players even back then could've had with the game. Looking at something like Shadow of the Colossus, I'm actually pretty bothered because the only thing that was really gained by its being remastered was increased availability. I do think it is necessary in that sense, and I could list a host of other games that are hard-to-find and hard to emulate that could very well do with remasters so that they could be enjoyed like back when they were released. But, looking at SotC, I would at least hope that a game would try to remedy the grammatical hiccups and frame rate drops that it had its original form, at the very least, even if the game was originally hard to find. If people are going to pay for it and than they probably want quality, too. But I'm rambling, back on topic.

When I look at something like Final Fantasy 9, where if you run it on a monitor that has a resolution of 1920 x 1080, if you're anywhere else but the overworld, it's going to look like a gigantic blur. Because the art was made for a much smaller resolution, and for it to look good on anything larger it needs to be redrawn. This, to me, seems like something that could benefit from a remaster. Other than the CG cut scenes, running the game on the big TV makes even the 3-D models look messy, and it isn't without upscaling that it actually looks presentable. Even then, the 2D backgrounds look worse, so you're damned if you do don't ( and don't even get me started on this Steam release)

These are examples of at least what I feel are things that almost need remasters, certainly if they're intended to be played (well, at all, but) in at least some of the same context as when they were released. Remasters have a purpose in the context of preservation, after all. Do you guys know of any games that you find it difficult to play in their current forms or just can't get your hands on due to age and scarcity? Or even just games that you want to see remastered?

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

I will say this a million times over.

No to any remasters.

I'll be blunt with this: remasters are stupid, pointless, and a waste of time, energy, and money to make. I would rather a developer that I like to devote their time making proper sequel, future installment, or new IP. Think about how many times Resident Evil has been remastered - it's essentially on every generational console. If you're a fan of a particular game that a developer made, support them making a new game not a remastered one; the gaming industry takes steps backwards instead of forwards when games are remastered.

 

[Austin]

I do like certain remasters of games I didn't play the original version of, only because, like you said, the availability is increased. Like, I am never going to own a Sega Dreamcast, so without the Sonic Adventure remaster(s), I wouldn't be able to experience what I thought was a nice game and a piece of Sonic history.

But also, I'm with Matt in that I would rather developers focus their efforts on something NEW, given the option. Advancements need to be made, and if developers are just making their old games a bit prettier on a new system, then they're not really making progress in terms of game design.

So while I do appreciate the increased availability that remasters give us, I don't think game devs should be focusing on them over new games.

 

[machomuu]

I will say this a million times over.

No to any remasters.

I'll be blunt with this: remasters are stupid, pointless, and a waste of time, energy, and money to make. I would rather a developer that I like to devote their time making proper sequel, future installment, or new IP. Think about how many times Resident Evil has been remastered - it's essentially on every generational console. If you're a fan of a particular game that a developer made, support them making a new game not a remastered one; the gaming industry takes steps backwards instead of forwards when games are remastered.

While I agree that the trend that the industry has followed up to this point has been more of an unnecessary cash grab than it had any right to, I don't necessarily think that this makes the idea bad as a whole.

Personally, I don't games can be substituted or replaced. A new Dot Hack would be nice, but that people almost literally can't play GU without paying up the wazoo for old tech and almost thrice the amount. That, and emulation's mostly impractical for it, so it's basically almost impossible for people to actually play the game. That's a thought that doesn't gel with me, I don't like the idea of games not being accessible without climbing a high wall. So I certainly wouldn't call it pointless or a waste of time or money. A new title won't replace GU, after all. And I think this goes for any game.

As far as new releases go, I don't really see that being a problem. For most companies, they partition small parts of their teams to make these remasters (and usually with very minimal goals, which is why we see so much shit as far as remasters have gone lately). But it's pretty, pretty rare that a company's new products take a hit to production because they brought all hands on deck for a remaster. And if they did...well, you wanna talk about pointless and stupid, there you go. That's how you rake in a small amount of cash at the risk of potential bad PR and the likely chance of net loss.

 

[Arsenic]

Games that need a remaster?

Halo 3 and Reach.

And with this example I can argue against the "spend their time making something new" because they suck at making stuff new. Both of their new games get farther and farther from the gameplay of the series to chase this stupid 420eSportsBlazeIt craze that really needs to stop. The remasters let me actually get online playability, new music, and top-line visuals along with the original wonderful gameplay.

Oh, and it doesn't have that stupid shitty CSGO card pack opening bullshit. You have a guaranteed goal to unlock something you want. I suppose this small rant should go in the RNG thread though.

 

[ZetaZaku]

PS3>PS4 remasters are usually pointless, but there are some that vastly improve the original that it becomes a definitive version, like The Last of Us Remaster. The PS3 version is kind of unplayable that it has me wondering how that game even became as hyped as it was. But the remaster fixed everything plaguing the game, like loading times and going 60fps.

 

[Nah]

Xenosaga trilogy remaster plz

 

[Satoshi Ookami]

I think remasters of subsequent console generations are pointless and simply work as a way to earn easy money on something you already did.
Especially since I don't give a rat's ass about how the game looks.

However, when it comes to remasters of oldies, especially with trophies, I think it's fun way how to replay them since there is that one additional aspect.
Too bad, companies obviously prefer the first choice.

 

[Yukari]

I will say this a million times over.

No to any remasters.

I'll be blunt with this: remasters are stupid, pointless, and a waste of time, energy, and money to make. I would rather a developer that I like to devote their time making proper sequel, future installment, or new IP. Think about how many times Resident Evil has been remastered - it's essentially on every generational console. If you're a fan of a particular game that a developer made, support them making a new game not a remastered one; the gaming industry takes steps backwards instead of forwards when games are remastered.

I really don't think I can agree with this. Yeah, most of the remasters we've seen recently have just been cash grabs, but that doesn't mean the very concept of one is bad; it can be a good way of making a game available to people who didn't own the original console and as such weren't able to play the original game.

Look at Grim Fandango for example: the game was a commercial failure in spite of being a critical success. In fact, many people considering one of the greatest games adventure games- if not one of the best games in general -ever made. Since the game only sold over 500,000 copies (Not to mention, it's incredibly old and doesn't get along with modern hardware,) it was very hard to find copies of the original game. And even if you did, given its age it would look pretty bad on an HD monitor. There was actually a huge demand for the game to be re-released on GOG.com since finding legitimate copies of the game wasn't the easiest task before the game was remastered. But once the remaster came out, it was a huge success!

So yeah. I think that remasters can be good sometimes.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

I really don't think I can agree with this. Yeah, most of the remasters we've seen recently have just been cash grabs, but that doesn't mean the very concept of one is bad; it can be a good way of making a game available to people who didn't own the original console and as such weren't able to play the original game.

Look at Grim Fandango for example: the game was a commercial failure in spite of being a critical success. In fact, many people considering one of the greatest games adventure games- if not one of the best games in general -ever made. Since the game only sold over 500,000 copies (Not to mention, it's incredibly old and doesn't get along with modern hardware,) it was very hard to find copies of the original game. And even if you did, given its age it would look pretty bad on an HD monitor. There was actually a huge demand for the game to be re-released on GOG.com since finding legitimate copies of the game wasn't the easiest task before the game was remastered. But once the remaster came out, it was a huge success!

So yeah. I think that remasters can be good sometimes.

While I think that's good and all, I really don't think there's a need for them. Dishonored, Dark Souls 2, Bioshock Collection, Assassins Creed Ezio Edition, Dead Rising Collection, Darksiders...these are just some of the examples that I can think of on the top of my head that have been remastered for current consoles when they haven't been out for what, <10 years? Maybe a bit more? I feel like it's unnecessary, I don't know...just seems like a cash grab for me.

The only exception I can really see is games from maybe the SNES/Sega Genesis games being remade. This I can kindove understand, but when you are just upgrading from Xbox 360 to Xbox One or PS3 to PS4, I see that as really lazy and very money hungry.

 

[Yukari]

While I think that's good and all, I really don't think there's a need for them. Dishonored, Dark Souls 2, Bioshock Collection, Assassins Creed Ezio Edition, Dead Rising Collection, Darksiders...these are just some of the examples that I can think of on the top of my head that have been remastered for current consoles when they haven't been out for what, <10 years? Maybe a bit more? I feel like it's unnecessary, I don't know...just seems like a cash grab for me.

The only exception I can really see is games from maybe the SNES/Sega Genesis games being remade. This I can kindove understand, but when you are just upgrading from Xbox 360 to Xbox One or PS3 to PS4, I see that as really lazy and very money hungry.

Like I said: the way the industry has been using them is just an attempt to milk the games- I'm in no way arguing with that -but they definitely aren't an inherently bad thing.

 

[JJ Styles]

If any of you vault cralwers and smutty lil bandits probably lurked around Gearbox's forums or even still follow Gearbox, i bet some of you may have already heard of rumors for a remastered Borderlands 1.

While I pretty much enjoy the original Borderlands 1 up to this day, which I do have a lot of great things to say about after spending 400++ hours on Borderlands 2, and playing Borderlands 1 again, I do have to mention that Borderlands 1 to me has aged.. on a rather 50/50 scale to me.. and if its on a 50/50 scale, it has not aged well enough..

Let me explain.. While Borderlands 1 has a much superior loot system than that of Borderlands 2, the main problems really with BL1 is that the game just feel dated in certain areas. I'm pretty sure that nobody ever wants to just smash their USE KEY just to pick up the coins, cash, or ammunition lying on the floor right? That's like in Mario where instead of running towards said pickups where you scream fckin COOOOOOOOOOOIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNSSSS, you're smashing your use key to get the coins and pickups like a brain dead skaglick. Not to mention that the skill trees of Brick, Roland, Lilith, and Mordecai are really hard to appreciate since there's way too many points to put.. no one point wonders nor really game changing Capstone skills like the BL2 (and the BL The Pre sequel) vault hunters do. There's a reason why Borderlands 2 is highly regarded as the pinnacle of the Vault Hunting franchise mainly since Borderlands 2 offered such improvements to the gameplay and features over from Borderlands 1, and yes the picking up of coins, cash, and ammo is one of the key features, among other things such as better defined skill trees and one-point wonders in the characters' skill trees that make a lot of sense.

Gearbucks can easily remaster Borderlands 1 into the newer gen consoles and even for PC by simply updating the game with the features that people really enjoyed in Borderlands 2. (Rocket Launchers that are actually good, being able to move in Fight for your Life, autopickup of pickups such as bullets, cash, and coins, etc). Gearbucks can easily restructure the skill trees of Roland, Brick, Lilith, and Mordecai to have one point wonders and capstone skills that make a lot of sense. Heck, they can even carry over something that I really liked from BL:TPS where characters can now get their action skills at LVL3 instead of LVL5, oh and of course include ALL of the DLCs, that includes the level caps.

Going in a more general sense in the topic.. the one thing I do like about Remasters is that people in the younger generation, who are also carrying current gen tech such as Windows 10 and current gen consores such as PS4s and XBoners get to enjoy the foundations of certain game series.. again, Borderlands 1 Remastered being an example that Gearbox can use to help hype up for Borderlands 3.

Oh how about that Half Life 1 Remaster with the IDTECH6 Engine? Gordon Freeman with Doom style glory kills and in a game engine that performs incredibly smooth, has excellent Frames per secks, and some of the best looking gibs, gore, and effects? Oh wait... IDTECH6 engine is in the property of idsoftware (and to some extent, Bethesda)... gg.. Valve. You're stuck with your Source Engine.