• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Remakes or Sequels?

Dragon

Dragon

lover of milotics
  • Pokémon General General Pokémon General Cadet Level Ball Master Ball
    • 11,152
    Posts
    11
    Years
    Suppose that a certain video game that you enjoy finishing can be eligible to get a total remake. For example, the Legend of Zelda: the Wind Waker got a HD remake on the Nintendo Wii U. Or, let's say that it might get a sequel, like how Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World was a sequel to the original Tales of Symphonia.

    Just thinking about this, do you prefer if video games received a total remake from the original, or do you prefer if they have a sequel to the other? Why do you prefer one other the other, or, does it solely matter on the video game itself?

    Feel free to share any thoughts!
     
    generally i would prefer a remake but only if it significantly adds to the quality of the original game in terms of graphics, sounds, gameplay and/or content. because there are some great old games you just wish you could play on today's consoles (the upcoming ff7 is a good example).

    but it depends on the game though, some of them should've had a sequel instead of a "remaster" even if the latter is easier to create.
     
    Depends on the age of the game. If the game is 10 years old or something where the gameplay or graphics have become significantly outdated, I'd prefer a remake. But if a remake wouldn't raise the quality or accessibility of the game there's no point other than it being a money grab. There are games on my PS2 and Gamecube I'd really like to play, but don't easily have a way to play them, so I'd like to see a PC or current gen console remaster/remake. But things like the Skyrim Special Edition were pointless since it's a PC game and playable on consoles with HDMI support.
     
    I believe its based on the age of the game also. For example the Sora No Kiseki Trilogy deserved the Evolution versions. Even though the originals were well aged, it did help a lot for those that are behind story wise with the entire Kiseki series. Its also why I support the Complete Remix of KH coming out in March.
     
    Loewe said:
    I believe its based on the age of the game also. For example the Sora No Kiseki Trilogy deserved the Evolution versions. Even though the originals were well aged, it did help a lot for those that are behind story wise with the entire Kiseki series.
    Click to expand...
    OMG, Loewe! :D

    Oh yea, definitely. And how awesome the EVO versions were =D Staying completely true to the original and only polishing some minor things. The best kind of remake :)
     
    It depends on the game, if it's a series like the Elder Scrolls, I would prefer a sequel (if that's the proper way to describe it) but if it's a old, standalone game then I would probably prefer a remake.
     
    Echoing what a couple others have said, but I also think it depends on the age of the game. I know this was a "remaster" and not a "remake", but an example I can think of was The Last of Us - I didn't really think remastering a game that was like 3 years old was necessary, and I would have preferred it if they spent that time just working on the sequel instead (and they are now!!)

    Buut something like Final Fantasy VII, definitely worthy of the remake, and I hope they make it amazing! The graphics of the original are super dated, and I think an update on that will be great for those who want to replay it for nostalgia, and also draw in a younger crowd who may not have played it before.
     
    Both. I see people say things a lot like "I'd rather they make something new" when it comes to remakes, but honestly...they aren't mutually exclusive. Not inherently, at least. If we're talking specifically in those cases, then I'd say it depends. If CyberConnect2 was to put out a poll asking if people wanted them to add a new entry to the comatose .Hack series or remake one of the titles, I would immediately, without a doubt, vote in the case of remaking the G.U. series. Reason being, the quality of the .Hack series varies wildly, and G.U. getting remade either makes for a better version of one of my favorite games or a mediocre attempt that I can ignore in favor of the original.

    If we look at Fire Emblem, back when they announced the new Fire Emblem I was actually disappointed that we weren't getting a remake since Shadow Dragon was a pretty solid remake of the original Fire Emblem and Shin Monshou no Nazo was an ambitious remake of a title of the same name. Gaiden was always an eccentric member of the series but I've always wanted to get into it and never really could, but I'm pretty confident that the new Fire Emblem (which is, indeed, a remake of Gaiden) will be my cure for that.

    Because the thing about remakes is that they actually require quality to bank on. Quality and content. You can't sustain your company on paltry remakes alone. Square tried this and they almost went bankrupt. So the thought of 1 remake made equaling one sequel lost is pretty ridiculous, because more often than not, even if a remake sells more than a sequel would if it were made in its place, it won't generally make more- partially due to its price point and partially due to demand. Pokemon itself is a solid example of this, its remakes being vastly outsold by its sequels...neither of which having been proven to staunch the release or development of the other.

    But I'm rambling. Both, definitely.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top