# A Critique of Video Game Remakes



## Ryukouki (Jan 25, 2014)

Hope I was not missed too much. What do I have to bring today? I was playing _Final Fantasy IV _a little while back, and it hit me that this game has just seen too many rereleases spanning multiple consoles. While I love this game to death, I kind of have to put my foot down and say, hey, Square Enix, enough is enough. I'm interested in looking at some feedback from you guys about your thoughts regarding video game remakes and ports. Are video game remakes healthy for the gaming industry? And where should we draw the line? Is there a theoretical point where as a gamer, you think that something has been released too many times to be enjoyable?

[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]

There clearly needs to be a line established between port and remake; ports being less expensive to make as it essentially migrates the game to a different platform, with the goal of making it more available to the general public, whereas a remake is redone from the ground up and providing a new way to experience an older game. When I look at a game like _The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, _I see a timeless classic that should be remade for the newer generation to be exposed to it. I feel like that should have been the purpose of these ports and remakes; exposing the game to a newer generation so that they are able to experience the adventures we did back in the day. _Ocarina of Time_ appeared as a port on the Nintendo Gamecube with the Master Quest bundle, along with a port on the Wii Virtual Console, and an "in-between" on the Nintendo 3DS which kind of felt lacking due to the presence of the older and rather outdated soundtrack. It kind of went between port and remake and updated the some aspects while retaining other aspects.

I then move on to a company like Square Enix, who as of late has severely disappointed me and seems to not be focusing anymore on unique content, instead taking previous ideas and rehashing them time after time. Gone are the days where _Final Fantasy _was about exploration and an epic journey with incredible storytelling. All I see now are games like _Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy XIII-2, and Final Fantasy XIII: Lightning Returns_, which deviate little from the original game. When we look at the release of _Final Fantasy IV_, the game has been released on the Super Famicom, the Playstation, the Game Boy Advance, the Wii, the Playstation Portable, and the Wonderswan, and even the mobile industry. It has been ported over and repainted so many times over the past two decades that at this point it just feels old and evident that Square Enix is running out of things to work with. While it is unfair to criticize their ports, it begins to feel like that is all they have done over the past several years. 

When I mentioned that it is good for remakes to expose the game to newer generations, when you look at a timeline like that of _Final Fantasy IV _do you find that a line should be drawn and say that the game needs to stop since it has access almost anywhere now? It is unfortunate that even Capcom is taking a similar route, one of them being the _Ace Attorney _franchise. The original trilogy is all over the place now; having originated from the Game Boy Advance, it is now on the Nintendo DS, Wii, coming to the 3DS, and on mobile.

When we look at games that are being ported over constantly like this, does it ever come to mind that these companies are just taking the easy way out? A little while back, I criticized the video game industry, and made comments about how developers are not taking enough risks and generating interesting content. While the overall goal of a company is solely to make money, where is it that gamers should draw the line and be able to request more, especially from a big company such as Square Enix or Capcom? Do we even have the right to legitimately criticize companies for their actions? When I see ports of the same game on every single platform (easy money), and rehashing of the same content (easy way out) it just feels like the dedicated gaming base is getting spat on. And God knows that I'll still be there to buy the next installment of whatever game, because that's the way life works. It's an interesting paradox I've found myself in. The same could be said of the _Pokémon_ franchise, which I have been playing since I was a kid, and acknowledge that, to some degree, it could be more and more of the same.



_Unhealthy? Square Enix has remade _Final Fantasy VI _to disparaging reviews citing how poor the graphics now look in comparison to the original._​ 
Could it happen to be that we gamers are now getting older, therefore we don't see games the same as we did when we were young? Look at the _Pokémon_ franchise, we used to relish catching critters as kids and now as we grow older all we think about are the analytics behind each creature! Has our age jaded us to the point that we just expect more and more out of games?

Going back to the original point, are ports and remakes in themselves healthy? For me, I find it to be both yes and no. Yes, remakes are nice because it provides new material and updated visuals and features that could not be done for the original release, due to restrictions in technology at the time. At the same time it also provides players a new way to experience an older title that has been upgraded to match the current technology available. Ports can be both healthy and unhealthy (to me at least). It could be healthy to provide a developing company the money necessary to work on future titles, yet it could be unhealthy because it takes a lot less effort to migrate it over. 

For those tuning in, do you find that gaming ports and remakes are good for the industry (thinking about it in terms of games like _Final Fantasy IV_ or the _Ace Attorney _series) and should be encouraged, or do you think that remakes should get minimal exposure and instead tell gamers to search for older systems to enjoy the content on, thereby giving developers more time to actively develop unique intellectual properties? Let me know what you think!


----------



## JackSakamoto (Jan 25, 2014)

By the way,did they resolve that glitch that made FFVI on Android unbeatable ?
Nevertheless,most of the "remakes" on console are " HD Collection ",not even a true remake with bonuses ( more glitches doesn't count .. )
The only true remake I've seen ( played ) is Persona 4 Golden,for now.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jan 25, 2014)

I myself would prefer re-releases instead of "remakes", like PSOne Classics or Nintendo's "Virtual Console" games; a classic game is released at an affordable price that's playable on current devices. I find releasing a "remake" of a game (read: upping textures to "totally HD promise!" or just applying new textures and disregarding new content, etc) and then charging full price to be...annoying. Why should I buy a reskinned version of X if I can find the old version for $20 cheaper?


----------



## Gahars (Jan 25, 2014)

Sure, in the same way that remakes have merit in any industry. John Carpenter's The Thing, one of the great science fiction and horror films ever made, was a remake. Battlestar Galactica took a cheesy, cheap Star Wars cash in and produced a riveting, thought provoking program (for a few seasons, anyway). Remakes/updates/rejiggerings of classic video games can give a whole new audience a chance to experience the game for themselves.

I don't think a game can be remade too much. I think the responsibility lies with the audience there; stop buying the remakes and the companies will get the message.

I think the bigger concern is developers "updating" the games in ways that actively hurt them, especially since it can be so hard to access the originals. The AV Club just posted this article the other day, funnily enough, and the points it raises are very relevant to the topic at hand. It's definitely worth a read.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jan 25, 2014)

Gahars said:


> Sure, in the same way that remakes have merit in any industry. John Carpenter's The Thing, one of the great science fiction and horror films ever made, was a remake. Battlestar Galactica took a cheesy, cheap Star Wars cash in and produced a riveting, thought provoking program (for a few seasons, anyway). Remakes/updates/rejiggerings of classic video games can give a whole new audience a chance to experience the game for themselves.
> 
> I don't think a game can be remade too much. I think the responsibility lies with the audience there; stop buying the remakes and the companies will get the message.
> 
> I think the bigger concern is developers "updating" the games in ways that actively hurt them, especially since it can be so hard to access the originals. The AV Club just posted this article the other day, funnily enough, and the points it raises are very relevant to the topic at hand. It's definitely worth a read.



Honest question how do you find this stuff?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 25, 2014)

As I've said countless times, remakes do have a point as long as they are actual remakes. Putting a fresh coat of paint on an old title is not a _"remake"_ much like putting make-up on an 80-year-old woman doesn't make her 20 again.

A remake only makes sense when it improves the game - makes it accessible to a contemporary audience not only from the distribution standpoint but also due to improved mechanics, graphics etc.

I often mention _"Ocarina of Time 3D"_ as a terrible remake, and here's why - the game was _(supposedly)_ made from the ground up and this fantastic opportunity to give the story a modern flair was... wasted, because it plays virtually the same as the original and it looks only marginally better, all things considered. Why remake something if your aim is to end up with a virtually identical product? All you're accomplishing is releasing a product which feels old and stale the moment it's released - you might as well release a port of the old game and the end result will be the same while the amount of work required will be much, much smaller.

With the same breath, I mention _"Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes"_ as a fantastic remake. Not only did the transition to a new engine bring better graphics than the original, it also introduced mechanics from Metal Gear Solid 2 games such as FPS view, hanging of ledges, hiding in lockers, hiding corpses in them etc. into the game which _substantially_ changed the way it was played. Voice acting and music were re-done from scratch aside from one song, and that refresh of the sound track really made the game feel fresh. Even the cutscenes were changed, giving them a more cinematic feel. The story was the same, sure, but the game felt fresh, brand-new and relevant.

So here's my point again - remakes have to _remake_ a game, make it feel fresh, new and relevant. They shouldn't feel like ports with improved graphics - that's not the point of a _remake_. There is a place in the industry for ports, HD ports, remasters and other such re-releases, sure - they're welcome, but they have to be priced appropriately. I'm willing to pay full price for a game that was _remade_, but when it's just a re-release of a title I already played, I'll only buy it if the price is _"right"_, meaning low.

Old games belong in the budget bargain bin, I'm afraid - if you want to sell the same story, you have to make it worth it, you have to make an effort, otherwise what's the point in calling the game a remake in the first place?


----------



## XDel (Jan 25, 2014)

Unlike 99% of movie remakes, ya totally... though there have been some that should have just been left alone such as the Burgertime WiiWare release...

...they'd have done us all a great service by releasing Super Burgertime as a WiiVC instead.


----------



## Gahars (Jan 25, 2014)

Ryukouki said:


> Honest question how do you find this stuff?


 

I don't know. I just sorta... do.

If you're interested, I'd definitely recommend the A.V. Club. They cover a wide range of media, from film and tv to music and books and, most recently, video games. The site can veer a little towards the hipsterish side, but overall the quality of the content is pretty solid. Even the comments section is pretty good, as far as comments sections go (the comments for Dexter easily score 10/10).


----------



## Ryukouki (Jan 25, 2014)

Gahars said:


> I don't know. I just sorta... do.
> 
> If you're interested, I'd definitely recommend the A.V. Club. They cover a wide range of media, from film and tv to music and books and, most recently, video games. The site can veer a little towards the hipsterish side, but overall the quality of the content is pretty solid. Even the comments section is pretty good, as far as comments sections go (the comments for Dexter easily score 10/10).


 

I will look into that!  Always looking for sites where I could possibly grab a news item or source of inspiration.


----------



## Nightwish (Jan 25, 2014)

The question is fairly generic, so I said yes. The idea of a remake is neither good nor bad and shouldn't be confused with a port, even if it happens many years later.
For a good example, look at the Baldur's Gate remakes, they're pretty ace.
Also, if copyright lengths were anywhere near sane, remakes would have no choice but to improve on the original, instead of... well, crap like this.
Thank the deities for emulators and piracy.


----------



## Missing Number (Jan 25, 2014)

Remakes are important, IMHO.  

Think of games as books.  Over time stories can be told time and time again, but sometimes the context is lost to all but the true historians and end up just being garbled nonsense to the current gen.  

With that being said, not all remixes are made equal. compare FFIV and VI's remakes..... one of the two shouldn't even be classed as one.  When developing remakes, devs should do what they did with FFIV's opening and not be afraid to add in new mechanics, so long as it doesn't bastardize the source material


----------



## Ryukouki (Jan 25, 2014)

Missing Number said:


> Remakes are important, IMHO.
> 
> Think of games as books. Over time stories can be told time and time again, but sometimes the context is lost to all but the true historians and end up just being garbled nonsense to the current gen.
> 
> With that being said, not all remixes are made equal. compare FFIV and VI's remakes..... one of the two shouldn't even be classed as one. When developing remakes, devs should do what they did with FFIV's opening and not be afraid to add in new mechanics, so long as it doesn't bastardize the source material


 

Definitely agree. I just find the whole mobile lineup of FF games to be disdainful.


----------



## RikuCrafter (Jan 25, 2014)

Nightwish said:


> The question is fairly generic, so I said yes. The idea of a remake is neither good nor bad and shouldn't be confused with a port, even if it happens many years later.
> For a good example, look at the Baldur's Gate remakes, they're pretty ace.
> Also, if copyright lengths were anywhere near sane, remakes would have no choice but to improve on the original, instead of... well, crap like this.
> Thank the deities for emulators and piracy.



What's wrong with that remake? It's a port of the PSP remake.


----------



## Nightwish (Jan 25, 2014)

RikuCrafter said:


> What's wrong with that remake? It's a port of the PSP remake.


As far as I've read, it upped the difficulty so you are encouraged to microbuy your way forward.


----------



## RikuCrafter (Jan 25, 2014)

Nightwish said:


> As far as I've read, it upped the difficulty so you are encouraged to microbuy your way forward.


That's weird, I've been playing it and haven't even found an option for IAP.


----------



## XDel (Jan 25, 2014)

I would hope "pay for in game advancement" is not a feature in the series now. That would be a shame. Video games are like love, you can't just buy the feeling of accomplishment you get when you earn your way through a level or past a boss, puzzle, or what have you. There was a time and a place for such things, it was called the arcade, but at least that brought people together, literally.


----------



## DinohScene (Jan 25, 2014)

Rerelease in HD or exact remake in HD are great imho.

But the way FF does it is just to much.


----------



## loco365 (Jan 25, 2014)

JackSakamoto said:


> By the way,did they resolve that glitch that made FFVI on Android unbeatable ?


 
Yeah, they did. I was looking at FFVI Android on the Play Store last night, and it was in the changelog. The ONLY redeeming factor that this version has is that it has the original SNES audio. The Always-Online DRM and the graphics kill it for me.


----------



## Acidflare (Jan 25, 2014)

HD remakes are kind of different when looked at through source code though, go get a phat ps3 try to load up jak and daxter the precurssor legacy I personally can garuntee that it won't play at an even playable rate it's like playing it on a p4 using pcsx-2 when it could run a tad bit stable on something like a p4. but they remade it with HD graphics using an updated graphics engine and then it worked and now you can enjoy it,

So yeah the HD Classic's are actually different, sony had to do the same thing with gow1/2 and the devil may cry series why? because the ps3 has no emotion engine which powered half of sony's personal library of ps2 games so they needed to remake them with newer graphical engines that didn't rely on the emotion engine gpu.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 25, 2014)

Team Fail said:


> Yeah, they did. I was looking at FFVI Android on the Play Store last night, and it was in the changelog. The ONLY redeeming factor that this version has is that it has the original SNES audio. The Always-Online DRM and the graphics kill it for me.


 

Same. The game looks too much like an HD version of RPG Maker XP  Some remakes I'm fine with, others like this, not so much.


----------



## loco365 (Jan 25, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> Same. The game looks too much like an HD version of RPG Maker XP  Some remakes I'm fine with, others like this, not so much.


 
Yeah. That was my initial impression of it. Too much like RPG Maker.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 25, 2014)

Team Fail said:


> Yeah. That was my initial impression of it. Too much like RPG Maker.


 

I'll stick to the original thank you


----------



## Oswarlan (Jan 25, 2014)

A nice remake, i.e a good old game with new fancy graphics and bug fixes (if necessary) is all fine and dandy, but too many games have been re-re-re-re-re-re-remade to the point of killing the game. A re-make should be something that happens relatively rarely, actually improves upon the game, even if only visually, and not on the same game 15 times.


----------



## tofast4u (Jan 25, 2014)

I'm begging for a remake of Ruby and Sapphire, and the Heartgold/Soulsilver remakes were awesome.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jan 25, 2014)

So, I've got a couple bones to pick with you. First, FFXIII-2 is not a remake. It's a sequel. Second, FFXIII-2 is very different than its predecessor. I'll admit that it's not as different as I had hoped, but it's a huge step up. I can't comment on Lightning Returns since it hasn't been released in PS3ISO North America, though.

Now that's out of the way, unfortunately I got to this article late so I can't do much except agree with most people like usual. Completely re-built from the ground up? Great. Released on another console with little to no changes? Awful. I agree with everything said about Square Enix, though. The world needs actual FF7 and recently FF8 remakes, not ones with _barely_ updated graphics, horrible sound, and always-online DRM. We have FFX and FFX-2 getting re-released soon, and later comes FFXII. I find it all to be rather annoying. I'm betting I could play FFX (if I wanted to, but I hated that game) using PCSX2 and get as good if not better graphics, thanks to their hardware hacks.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 25, 2014)

Pedeadstrian said:


> So, I've got a couple bones to pick with you. First, FFXIII-2 is not a remake. It's a sequel. Second, FFXIII-2 is very different than its predecessor. I'll admit that it's not as different as I had hoped, but it's a huge step up. I can't comment on Lightning Returns since it hasn't been released in PS3ISO North America, though.
> 
> Now that's out of the way, unfortunately I got to this article late so I can't do much except agree with most people like usual. Completely re-built from the ground up? Great. Released on another console with little to no changes? Awful. I agree with everything said about Square Enix, though. The world needs actual FF7 and recently FF8 remakes, not ones with _barely_ updated graphics, horrible sound, and always-online DRM. We have FFX and FFX-2 getting re-released soon, and later comes FFXII. I find it all to be rather annoying. I'm betting I could play FFX (if I wanted to, but I hated that game) using PCSX2 and get as good if not better graphics, thanks to their hardware hacks.


 


Actually, the FF7/FF8 re-releases have mods that use the original PSX music now so that's no longer an issue, nor is playing the rereleases on Steam, pretty non-invasive  Though when SE does remake FF7, they'll likely ruin it with RPG Maker graphics


----------



## loco365 (Jan 25, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> Actually, the FF7/FF8 re-releases have mods that use the original PSX music now so that's no longer an issue, nor is playing the rereleases on Steam, pretty non-invasive  Though when SE does remake FF7, they'll likely ruin it with RPG Maker graphics


 
That'd probably actually be true ngl.


----------



## link6155 (Jan 25, 2014)

Well the term "remake" has such a negative vibe in todays consumer's head, but it's not necessarily bad. There are people who may have never played the original game, so a remake is just as new as any other games they never played. What remake also offers is a chance for the game developer to get things right, they don't always hit a home run the first shot.

Now "porting" a game over is a different thing. It's just slapping the game from one console onto another with very little change. An example of this is Rayman 3D. The game markets itself as a new game, but it's actually just a port of Rayman 2. The graphics don't seemed to be improved from the original, the camera is just as awkward as the first 3D games, and overall just doesn't seem to have much effort put in.

Take Ocarina of Time 3D. It's a remake of probably the most popular Zelda game. Unlike Rayman 3D, Ocarina of Time 3D improved the graphics, took advantage of the 3D effect on the 3DS, and brought new intuitive controls. When you play it, you feel immense in the game, being able to use motion to aim the arrow, seeing Hyrule in 3D, all of it just makes the game even more outstanding that it was on the N64.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jan 25, 2014)

link6155 said:


> Well the term "remake" has such a negative vibe in todays consumer's head, but it's not necessarily bad. There are people who may have never played the original game, so a remake is just as new as any other games they never played. What remake also offers is a chance for the game developer to get things right, they don't always hit a home run the first shot.
> 
> Now "porting" a game over is a different thing. It's just slapping the game from one console onto another with very little change. An example of this is Rayman 3D. The game markets itself as a new game, but it's actually just a port of Rayman 2. The graphics don't seemed to be improved from the original, the camera is just as awkward as the first 3D games, and overall just doesn't seem to have much effort put in.
> 
> Take Ocarina of Time 3D. It's a remake of probably the most popular Zelda game. Unlike Rayman 3D, Ocarina of Time 3D improved the graphics, took advantage of the 3D effect on the 3DS, and brought new intuitive controls. When you play it, you feel immense in the game, being able to use motion to aim the arrow, seeing Hyrule in 3D, all of it just makes the game even more outstanding that it was on the N64.


 

How could you not like those polygons that were in the N64 version?


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 25, 2014)

Ryukouki said:


> How could you not like those polygons that were in the N64 version?


 

You mean the flipper-hands with glued-together fingers and the paper vines on the walls? 

You're right though, the game does have a good charm too it, had a weird framerate though, 18 fps


----------



## Redhorse (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> As I've said countless times, remakes do have a point as long as they are actual remakes. Putting a fresh coat of paint on an old title is not a _"remake"_ much like putting make-up on an 80-year-old woman doesn't make her 20 again.
> 
> 
> there is an old saying... "An old maid in silk panties is like choclate milk in a chanpaign bottle."
> ...


----------



## MegaBassBX (Jan 25, 2014)

I remember the first time the ps3 came out most developers where complaining about how hoard it is to make games for the PS3,a one game with a team of 100 or more can take up to 3 to 6 years in making a single game , the problem of remakes is that the game industry started to focus to much on the graphics and forgot about the game it self , which finally led the gaming Industry to it knees by exhausting themselves with trivial shit. look at most games now do you feel that spark that you felt when you played your first Pokemon game or Castlevania or Golden Sun or even Zelda , No .

What I believe is that remakes, spark the imagination of young and upcoming Game developers and designers.


----------



## Naridar (Jan 25, 2014)

I admit I have pirated FFVI for android, but there's just no way in Kansas I'd pay 15 USD for it. And given how it actually is, I might just delete it and make room for something worthwhile on my phone. It's a shame the inferior FFIV (which wasn't that good of a game to begin with) gets not only a much grander remake, even its' lukewarm sequel (The after years) gets the same treatment too! FFV's new form was great and ran perfectly, so why couldn't they have done the same with VI, I have no idea.

Also, remakes from 2 generations behind or more (I don't consider HD rereleases "remakes") are often superior to their originals. Take Dragon Quest IV-VI on the DS for example. They're much better paced and nice to look at (not just with blown-up graphics, but artistically redesigned as well). Or Pokemon FireRed/LeafGreen and HeartGold/SoulSilver, they bring the updated mechanics and some new pokémon into a well-known setting. However, if a remake's "bad", it might be partly a fault of the original, which is protected so much by the pink glasses of nostalgia (take Duck Tales for example)


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Putting a fresh coat of paint on an old title is not a _"remake"_ much like putting make-up on an 80-year-old woman doesn't make her 20 again.



They do not have to be 20, just act like they are 20. Of course 65 years of drinking practice mean they can often drink me under the table.

As for the matter at hand I reckon Final Fantasy became Tetris and Pong and just has to be everywhere. This is a move I can approve of.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jan 25, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> They do not have to be 20, just act like they are 20. Of course 65 years of drinking practice mean they can often drink me under the table.
> 
> As for the matter at hand I reckon Final Fantasy became Tetris and Pong and just has to be everywhere. This is a move I can approve of.


I actually got a good amount of time out of my PS1 Pong game. Then again, that was back when I enjoyed almost everything. I miss being a kid/not being a cynical asshole.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 25, 2014)

Pedeadstrian said:


> I actually got a good amount of time out of my PS1 Pong game. Then again, that was back when I enjoyed almost everything. I miss being a kid/not being a cynical asshole.



You can be a cynical arsehole and still enjoy everything. I did it by not just playing but pulling everything apart.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 25, 2014)

Sorry, but this poll has way too little options.

I think the whole issue is that "remake" is such a broad term. It goes all the way from "lazy ass port to a different platform" to "redoing pretty much everything about it". And some things get pretty hard to classify. Is wii fit u a remake of wii fit (it has extra features)? How do we call the new tomb raider? Oh...a reboot? What's the difference between that and a remake, then? :confused:


Not that it matters much to me, as I don't think I've played much games both original and in a remake edition. Well...tetris, obviously (I might be missing a few others). But TBH, I think that game is kind of an exception...


----------



## pubert09 (Jan 25, 2014)

One of the big reasons I like remakes is that it simply becomes available on newer consoles, like FFX/X-2 being released for PS3 makes it where I don't have to pull out my PS2 or FFVI being on my phone so I don't have to go digging into my closet to find my SNES. The convenience is always nice for my lazy ass. Of course they could just be ports, not strictly remakes.


----------



## Ziko (Jan 26, 2014)

Gahars said:


> Sure, in the same way that remakes have merit in any industry. John Carpenter's The Thing, one of the great science fiction and horror films ever made, was a remake. Battlestar Galactica took a cheesy, cheap Star Wars cash in and produced a riveting, thought provoking program (for a few seasons, anyway). Remakes/updates/rejiggerings of classic video games can give a whole new audience a chance to experience the game for themselves.
> 
> I don't think a game can be remade too much. I think the responsibility lies with the audience there; stop buying the remakes and the companies will get the message.
> 
> I think the bigger concern is developers "updating" the games in ways that actively hurt them, especially since it can be so hard to access the originals. The AV Club just posted this article the other day, funnily enough, and the points it raises are very relevant to the topic at hand. It's definitely worth a read.


 
I know I would've said the same thing but again, as long as the gamers keep buying the remakes, there's gonna be a demand for them. As you said, quit buying them and sooner or later they'll get the picture and perhaps go to better projects.



Acidflare said:


> HD remakes are kind of different when looked at through source code though, go get a phat ps3 try to load up jak and daxter the precurssor legacy I personally can garuntee that it won't play at an even playable rate it's like playing it on a p4 using pcsx-2 when it could run a tad bit stable on something like a p4. but they remade it with HD graphics using an updated graphics engine and then it worked and now you can enjoy it,
> 
> So yeah the HD Classic's are actually different, sony had to do the same thing with gow1/2 and the devil may cry series why? because the ps3 has no emotion engine which powered half of sony's personal library of ps2 games so they needed to remake them with newer graphical engines that didn't rely on the emotion engine gpu.


 
That's admirable at all but what good are those games when some of them have bugs in them that can potentially get in the way of the experience or very little new content to where basically it's just the same game but looks slightly better. FF X/X2 did good because it now has for us content other countries got to enjoy but we didn't. Last Mission and the Creature system was cut for us due to time constraints if I remember. Also, the Kingdom Hearts remakes have the extra boss fights and content that was cut for us as well. It's a double-edged sword either way.



FAST6191 said:


> They do not have to be 20, just act like they are 20. Of course 65 years of drinking practice mean they can often drink me under the table.
> 
> As for the matter at hand I reckon Final Fantasy became Tetris and Pong and just has to be everywhere. This is a move I can approve of.


 
That's good if it's a good series/franchise but again, some of them have gotten bum raps for not improving upon their predecessors, similar mechanics and whatnot but it's just the nostalgia and sense of accomplishment that seems to keep them from dying off as well as the interest of the fans. Tetris in fact is celebrating it's 30th Anniversary this year and what I'm doing is going back and playing some of them for the occasion!


----------



## lordofthereef (Jan 26, 2014)

I have no problem with remakes. If they sell, there is obviously a market for it. Who am I to judge. I can choose to play what I want. SE isn't forcing me to play anything of theirs.

Wish I had more time for FFXIV:ARR. Best game of theirs since XI, or IX if you discount their MMOs.


----------



## jmjohnson85 (Jan 26, 2014)

I have nothing but good things to say about developers giving love and attention to classic games in whatever form they choose. I don't know how anyone could have complaints about remakes of amazing classic games of our past (I'm 28). I think anyone being critical of remakes is just over thinking things and should just take what they are given with thanks. Remakes show that the kick ass formulas used in games back then are still kicking ass today. I will hate the day when tradition turn based RPGs are no more. I say bring on the remakes and keep them fresh and up-to-date with the latest graphics and sound technology!!


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jan 26, 2014)

jmjohnson85 said:


> I have nothing but good things to say about developers giving love and attention to classic games in whatever form they choose. I don't know how anyone could have complaints about remakes of amazing classic games of our past (I'm 28). I think anyone being critical of remakes is just over thinking things and should just take what they are given with thanks. Remakes show that the kick ass formulas used in games back then are still kicking ass today. I will hate the day when tradition turn based RPGs are no more. I say bring on the remakes and keep them fresh and up-to-date with the latest graphics and sound technology!!


Remakes are good and all, but wouldn't you rather have a new story, changes to the gameplay, etc. than the same thing with updated graphics and sound? I'd rather have the turn-based RPG expanded upon and re-imagined (in a good way) than have the same battle system time and time again.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jan 26, 2014)

Can't make a judgement on a category.

You have to judge each game by its own merits. 

Some games are fantastic to be re made or re released. if a game is 20 years old odds are that a lot of people will buy it because its a "new" game to them. 



As for my own personal opinion, sometimes remakes suck when they mess with the original too much sometimes they screw it up. Sometimes they do a fantastic job and the changes are great! (Game by game basis.) 

Besides if not for remakes EA would be out of business for FIFA or Madden.... lol


----------



## JPhantom (Jan 26, 2014)

for my part I agree with what a lot of people have said. what many people have pointed out is that many "remakes" really are ports.  remakes should bring significant changes to the game and really seem to me to be less necessary than the ports.  I do believe that ports really are essential in an industry as fast paced as this if we want to have new gamers at least aware of its history and also the ports I've played often do more for the nostalgia lover in me then many remakes.  the problem is there are too many of them. remakes should be very seldom and ports should be more common probably be every other generation with a little leeway for ports that by the nature of the systems change the game significantly.  for instance the port of disgaea to a handheld console was very warmly appreciated because just the nature of a handheld console forced the game to be very different just because of the normal differences in the length of playing sessions.  what it did not need however was a port to both the psp and the ds as it really added nothing to the game to play the other and it was too soon after the original and the other port.


----------



## jmjohnson85 (Jan 26, 2014)

Pedeadstrian said:


> Remakes are good and all, but wouldn't you rather have a new story, changes to the gameplay, etc. than the same thing with updated graphics and sound? I'd rather have the turn-based RPG expanded upon and re-imagined (in a good way) than have the same battle system time and time again.


 

What you are describing I would still refer to as a remake.  Like Lufia 2 for DS.  It's still Lufia 2 but entirely re-imagined.

I will say it again - I am fine with "developers giving love and attention to classic games in whatever form they choose".


----------



## Vercalos (Jan 26, 2014)

I would have to err on the side of 'Yes', so long as they're properly done.  I agree primarily with what Foxi said.  There are some remakes which are absolutely excellent, and put an entirely new spin on old games..  For example, Lufia: Curse of the Sinistrals for the DS.  It is a ground-up remake of Lufia II: Rise of the Sinistrals, with ENTIRELY an different engine and gameplay...  I think the WORST remake I've ever played is probably Chrono Trigger for the DS.  It's not even a proper remake, but instead a re-release with very little added.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jan 26, 2014)

Vercalos said:


> I would have to err on the side of 'Yes', so long as they're properly done. I agree primarily with what Foxi said. There are some remakes which are absolutely excellent, and put an entirely new spin on old games.. For example, Lufia: Curse of the Sinistrals for the DS. It is a ground-up remake of Lufia II: Rise of the Sinistrals, with ENTIRELY an different engine and gameplay... I think the WORST remake I've ever played is probably Chrono Trigger for the DS. It's not even a proper remake, but instead a re-release with very little added.


Obviously you haven't played the most recent FFVII PC release.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jan 26, 2014)

Pedeadstrian said:


> Obviously you haven't played the most recent FFVII PC release.


 

Hey look, another bad Square Enix title remake that is worse than the original.  And oh lord that looked awful, I'm glad I didn't get it.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 26, 2014)

Ryukouki said:


> Hey look, another bad Square Enix title remake that is worse than the original.  And oh lord that looked awful, I'm glad I didn't get it.


 

The sad part is, they didn't even fix the sound until there people started to complain. They used the effing 1998 PC audio, yeah, I find it hilarious hackers replaced it with the original soundtrack long before Square Enix did it officially


----------



## Vercalos (Jan 26, 2014)

Pedeadstrian said:


> Obviously you haven't played the most recent FFVII PC release.


I actually have bought that one, with express purpose of modding it. 
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/07/how-to-make-final-fantasy-vii-look-like-an-hd-remaster/
I haven't gotten around to actually doing it, however, as I've gotten addicted to Kerbal Space Program.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 26, 2014)

Vercalos said:


> I actually have bought that one, with express purpose of modding it.
> http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/07/how-to-make-final-fantasy-vii-look-like-an-hd-remaster/
> I haven't gotten around to actually doing it, however, as I've gotten addicted to Kerbal Space Program.


 

There's even a hack that makes the overworld characters the in-battle models, pretty sweet mod. There are some hacks that might not work with the Steam version, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Vercalos (Jan 26, 2014)

Ryukouki said:


> Hey look, another bad Square Enix title remake that is worse than the original.  And oh lord that looked awful, I'm glad I didn't get it.


Bad as it is, I don't even consider it a proper remake.  It's a patch-job.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 26, 2014)

Vercalos said:


> Bad as it is, I don't even consider it a proper remake. It's a patch-job.


 

All they did was make it compatible with newer OSes, that's it. At least there are mods that make it look and sound helluva lot better.


----------



## calmwaters (Jan 26, 2014)

All I can say is that remakes are supposed to add something interesting. Now most of these games were well received in their time and are still talked about today, which is why they're getting a remake. It's basically letting a new generation play it with game settings they're used to (i.e. graphics). Does the Metroid Prime Trilogy count as remakes for Metroid Prime and 2: Echoes? Because those were good. Me, I'd rather play sequels. And even then, 14 sequels to a game is way too many (since Final Fantasy is being featured here). It's almost like the 12 sequels there were to Friday the 13th and 4 to Paranormal Activity.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jan 26, 2014)

Ryukouki said:


> Hope I was not missed too much. What do I have to bring today? I was playing _Final Fantasy IV _a little while back, and it hit me that this game has just seen too many remakes since its release. While I love this game to death, I kind of have to put my foot down and say, hey, Square Enix, enough is enough. I'm interested in looking at some feedback from you guys about your thoughts regarding video game remakes. Are video game remakes healthy for the gaming industry? And where should we draw the line? Is there a theoretical point where as a gamer, you think that something has been released too many times to be enjoyable?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you need to make a distinction between ports and remakes here. Most of those early Final Fantasy games have been ported to way too many platforms, but only some of them have actually seen remakes, and I have to say the remakes of 3 and 4 are rather great so you can hardly complain about those. It seems like you are talking mostly about ports here, not remakes.

Ports are in general good, they make games more accessible to the general public. Remakes are even better as when done right they can give you a new way to experience an old game.

There can never be too much of a good thing, and that is mostly true in this case too. No one is forcing anyone to buy the same game for multiple platforms, and most likely, most people aren't going to be doing that, so there really is nothing wrong with ports. It's simply a case of making games more available for those who haven't played them yet.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jan 26, 2014)

The Real Jdbye said:


> I think you need to make a distinction between ports and remakes here. Most of those early Final Fantasy games have been ported to way too many platforms, but only some of them have actually seen remakes, and I have to say the remakes of 3 and 4 are rather great so you can hardly complain about those. It seems like you are talking mostly about ports here, not remakes.
> 
> Ports are in general good, they make games more accessible to the general public. Remakes are even better as when done right they can give you a new way to experience an old game.
> 
> There can never be too much of a good thing, and that is mostly true in this case too. No one is forcing anyone to buy the same game for multiple platforms, and most likely, most people aren't going to be doing that, so there really is nothing wrong with ports. It's simply a case of making games more available for those who haven't played them yet.



I'll do some edits tomorrow.  Thanks for your feedback!


----------



## Hadrian (Jan 26, 2014)

I don't mind remakes as long as they don't fuck with what made them good. A lot of the recent ones I've tried like Duck Tales seemed to have just HD'd the sprites but then left a bland 2.5D background so that everything looks empty...and then made the game itself so easy it's no fun. When it comes to remaking a 2D platformer, the devs need to keep the whole thing, sprites, backgrounds etc in 2D and then take a look at the gameplay and only change what is wrong.  Also, add the original in there if you are allowed to.

Nintendo's Ocarina of Time 3D is a perfect example of how to do it right.


----------



## RikuCrafter (Jan 26, 2014)

Vercalos said:


> I would have to err on the side of 'Yes', so long as they're properly done. I agree primarily with what Foxi said. There are some remakes which are absolutely excellent, and put an entirely new spin on old games.. For example, Lufia: Curse of the Sinistrals for the DS. It is a ground-up remake of Lufia II: Rise of the Sinistrals, with ENTIRELY an different engine and gameplay... I think the WORST remake I've ever played is probably Chrono Trigger for the DS. It's not even a proper remake, but instead a re-release with very little added.


 
I'm fairly certain Chrono Trigger is more of an enhanced port than a remake.


----------



## tbgtbg (Jan 26, 2014)

RikuCrafter said:


> I'm fairly certain Chrono Trigger is more of an enhanced port than a remake.



It also has the cartoon cutscenes from the PSX version yet the lack of incredibly long loading times. 

Look, if a game's good and long out of print from a long dead system, why not re-release/remake it? It's always gonna be new to someone, and if you already played it and don't want to play it again it's not like you have to.

Usually game remakes are respectful of the original, unlike movies which sometimes rape the souls of the original or flat out don't get why the original worked.


----------



## elgarta (Jan 27, 2014)

Remade too much? No, unless it is getting annual remakes.

Re-released too much, or on too many platforms? Certainly.

Take the original Sonic the Hedgehog as an example. That game has seen so many re-releases on so many
Platforms that it really cheapens the game's worth overall and makes it a harder sell for
Old fans and new fans. 

And Ocarina of Time has had an N64 release, GameCube release, Wii VC release and a 3ds remake. 
Quite a few releases which are not over staying their welcome since it isn't on anything besides a Nintendo
System


----------



## kmno (Jan 27, 2014)

I'm having some problems understanding some of you here, so for a game to be a remake it should be almost diferent to the original in gameplay to be considered a remake? Does the GBA or even better, the PSP version of FF or FFII not count as a remake? Because those games are almost carbon copies of the originals save some extra touches (like the new dungeons), and even then I think they qualify as remakes.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jan 27, 2014)

kmno said:


> I'm having some problems understanding some of you here, so for a game to be a remake it should be almost diferent to the original in gameplay to be considered a remake? Does the GBA or even better, the PSP version of FF or FFII not count as a remake? Because those games are almost carbon copies of the originals save some extra touches (like the new dungeons), and even then I think they qualify as remakes.


Well, since there doesn't appear to be an agreed upon definition of remake, it's hard to say. Best example of my definition of a remake is Persona 4 Golden. It's not a copy and paste kind of thing, which is good.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 27, 2014)

Summary: Some remakes are pretty good, some are just plain bad and lazy (the GBA Final Fantasy ones come to mind); they had terrible soundtracks, mode 7 glitches, slowdown in battles when spells took up the screen. Only saving grace FF6 GBA had was an improved translation, the framerate, sound and other glitches make it unbearable to play. FF5 was a lot better and ran 60 fps all the time.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 27, 2014)

elgarta said:


> Remade too much? No, unless it is getting annual remakes.
> 
> Re-released too much, or on too many platforms? Certainly.
> 
> ...



On Sonic I would have thought it would have been the several suspect quality ports that cheapened the idea. How it impacts upon existing fans, beyond some boring attempt at elitism, I am not sure. That said Sonic 1 I am happy enough to not play, Sonic 2 (and some of the master system stuff I guess) was where things got interesting.


----------



## CydoniaDS (Jan 27, 2014)

I like remakes as long as they are done well and offer enough new features/upgrades to make them worthwhile.
I can't wait to see Majora's Mask on the 3DS. 

Also I just pre-ordered Fable Anniversary, which means I've bought the first Fable at least three times now, hah!


----------



## Apex (Jan 27, 2014)

Sorry, but this article seems a lot more like a rant than something well thought out.

I honestly don't believe that you played any of the Final Fantasy 'ports' or remakes that you're criticizing. The fact that you can tout the Ocarina of Time remake as anything other that an enhanced port 'done right' compared to something like the DS remake of Final Fantasy IV, is kinda sickening. By the way, Ocarina of Time has been out since the Nintendo 64, and it's been 'ported' with minimal changes and no additions to both the Gamecube, the Wii through VC, (correct me if I'm wrong here,) WiiU vc, and the 3DS. With exception to the normal DS that's just about every system that could feasibly handle the game since it's release. The 3DS which needed a sales boost only got a paint job'd Ocarina of Time.

Ports are not remakes. Ports take a lot less effort, as it's more or less just moving a game to another system. I can not criticize ports, and you shouldn't either. Ports enable companies to get that tiny bit of extra cash that they need in an every increasingly expensive industry. Games aren't cheap to make, these ports are functioning as more than just extra cash to line the coffers of the videogame company giants. They help give companies larger budgets on new triple A titles, like Final Fantasy XV and Kingdom Hearts 3. 

These are games I play once every few years anyways. I'm going to play them regardless, but the fact that each time I play them I get something new out of the experience, such as touched up graphics, new dungeons, increased difficulty, and new super-bosses, it seems like a win-win to me. Actual new content and the ability to play these games legitimately and optimized for my phone is great.

Finally, you made some mistakes: Final Fantasy IV wasn't for the Famicom, it was for the Super Famicom. Also if you're trying to make a point about how many times it was released, you missed a few. It was also released for the Wonderswan Color, and the PSP, as well as the 3D version for DS, which is the version on 'Mobile Platforms.'


----------



## Ryukouki (Jan 27, 2014)

Apex said:


> Sorry, but this article seems a lot more like a rant than something well thought out.
> 
> I honestly don't believe that you played any of the Final Fantasy 'ports' or remakes that you're criticizing. The fact that you can tout the Ocarina of Time remake as anything other that an enhanced port 'done right' compared to something like the DS remake of Final Fantasy IV, is kinda sickening. By the way, Ocarina of Time has been out since the Nintendo 64, and it's been 'ported' with minimal changes and no additions to both the Gamecube, the Wii through VC, (correct me if I'm wrong here,) WiiU vc, and the 3DS. With exception to the normal DS that's just about every system that could feasibly handle the game since it's release. The 3DS which needed a sales boost only got a paint job'd Ocarina of Time.
> 
> ...


 

Hey, thanks for the feedback, it's greatly appreciated. Some of your points were mentioned by others, and I do intend to make those corrections. Right now, the big concern with this article that I need to find time to rectify is the definition between remake and port, something I am going to comb over in a bit once I have time to actually sit down with it.  As far as the Final Fantasy IV mistakes with the system releases, I actually have that on the "Correction list" so to speak and will expand that. I definitely see where your criticisms come from, and in the end, it's due to the fact that I failed to make that distinction. Again, I will rectify this when I get the time to sit down and focus on those mistakes. Got stuck in the lab _a little_ longer than I would have liked.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jan 27, 2014)

For everyone going on about the "HD collections": They're more so meant to deliver a bundle at a budget and also let some people who missed out on the last generation get a chance to play.

Like I have a PS2 but I missed a few things. Like I never played God of War, Ico, or Shadow of the Colossus. I then got a PS3 and just bought the God of War Saga and got Ico and SotC from Playstation Plus. The collections are convenient, play better, look better, have more features, and all come at a nice price. I mean I got the God of War Saga, which comes with all 5 God of War games (well at the time of release), for $40. That's bang for your buck.

They're not intended as "remakes", just bringing games people may have missed or wanted to play again back for a buck.

And to people who are saying "W-well Ocarina of Time 3DS is better because the game is older!", hope you enjoyed paying $40 for a 15+ year old game with basically no changes made to it. Meanwhile I paid the same amount and got 5 God of War games.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 28, 2014)

No argument to most of that but there been some truly lazy ports, Silent Hill probably being the more notable but it is not alone, and that can be a bit disconcerting. Granted the obvious response, which I would probably have made to myself, is very similar to the "so what if there is shovelware/sports games/some "totally and utterly" different FPS to your chosen FPS", "so it is coming out on Android, what does it matter to you" and similar things, mainly just wanted to say it is not all sweetness and light.


----------



## jmjohnson85 (Jan 28, 2014)

I think most game "reiterations" can be classified into one of four main categories:

1. *Emulation* (completely unaltered game that runs on a different platform)
*The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition (GCN)
*The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Master's Quest (GCN)
*Virtual Console Releases (Wii/WiiU/3DS)
*PS1/PS2 Classics (PS3/Vita)

2. *Port* (game code has been altered to run on a different platform but no update to the game itself)
*Diablo III (360/PS3)
*Half-Life 2 (XBOX)
*The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Wii)
*Space Channel 5 (PS2)
*Grandia (PSX)
*Grandia II (PS2)
*Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete (PSX)
*Lucienne's Quest (3DO)

3. *Enhanced Port* (some mods to the _original_ game have been made ie. "tweaked" video and/or audio, gameplay mods and maybe some extra content)
*The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX (GBC)
*The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D (3DS)
*The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker HD (WiiU)
*Final Fantasy X|X-2 HD Remaster (PS3/Vita)
*Chrono Trigger (DS)
*The Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection (PS3)
*Doom 3 BFG (PS3/360)

4. *Remake* (entire game has been rebuilt from the ground up)
*Final Fantasy III (NDS)
*Final Fantasy IV (NDS)
*Final Fantasy IV: Complete Collection (PSP)
*Conker: Live & Reloaded (XBOX)
*Lunar Legend (GBA)
*Lunar: Silver Star Harmony (PSP)
*Super Mario All-Stars (SNES)
*DuckTales: Remastered (PS3/360/WiiU/PC)


I don't think it would be appropriate to call categories 1 & 2 remakes since in most cases the actual game will remain entirely intact and unaltered.

It would be wise to distinguish between "Enhanced Ports" and full-blown "Remakes" but if someone were to refer to (for instance) Wind Waker HD as the new Zelda "remake" I would totally understand what they are talking about.

I would try to avoid using the term "re-release" since that is a vague term which doesn't establish whether the game has been "updated" or was simply just ported/emulated.

I suppose there could be a "5th" category which would be "Ports of Enhanced Ports" (Chrono Trigger for IOS/Android) or "Ports of Remakes" (Final Fantasy III for OUYA) but I would still just fit those games into categories 3 and 4 respectively.

Also, it would seem that "ports" are beginning to die out since most games nowadays are being developed on multiple platforms simultaneously.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jan 28, 2014)

Who would have guessed that there's a bit more underneath the surface here!  I really gotta keep up with that stuff.


----------



## Chocolina (Jan 28, 2014)

So Final Fantasy gets a ridiculous amounts of ports, remakes, and adaptations; so do Beetles', Star Wars, and the Bible. Why is this even a discussion?
Is it really so surprising, or a big deal that one form of media, video games, shares common traits from  other big media; literature, cinema, music?

Also threads like these aren't as introspective as they are a cry for attention.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jan 28, 2014)

Chocolina said:


> So Final Fantasy gets a ridiculous amounts of ports, remakes, and adaptations; so do Beetles', Star Wars, and the Bible. Why is this even a discussion?
> Is it really so surprising, or a big deal that one form of media, video games, shares common traits from other big media; literature, cinema, music?
> 
> Also threads like these aren't as introspective as they are a cry for attention.


Correction: posts like yours are a cry for attention. If you're going to criticize an article, say more than "Uh, helllo~." He's not just saying remakes are happening, he's saying remakes are happening and wants to know how other people feel about them.


----------



## kmno (Jan 28, 2014)

I actually agree with jmjohnson85 on the categories, though some games may be a little hard to choose where to put them, most of them are clear on where to be placed and this should also reduce the confusion on what constitutes a remake and what not.


----------



## jmjohnson85 (Jan 28, 2014)

Chocolina said:


> So Final Fantasy gets a ridiculous amounts of ports, remakes, and adaptations; so do Beetles', Star Wars, and the Bible. Why is this even a discussion?
> Is it really so surprising, or a big deal that one form of media, video games, shares common traits from other big media; literature, cinema, music?
> 
> Also threads like these aren't as introspective as they are a cry for attention.


 

I tend to agree with you here but I think there is a different approach that could lead the discussion in more of a positive/uplifting way.


----------



## TheLostSabre (Jan 31, 2014)

Resident Evil (GCN) is a good example of a remake.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 31, 2014)

The_Lost_Sabre said:


> Resident Evil (GCN) is a good example of a remake.



What about the DS remake?


----------

