why do you love remakes so much ?

[Youkai]

I guess similiar topics exist en nasse but searching for remake didn't help much xD

Maybe it is wrong but I always think that if noone would be the next remake of a remake of a game that was remade from a previous remake again and again, they would stop with thus nonsense ...

It is understandable that some people say they did not play the original or liked the original and want to play a better version again but maybe it makes more sense to have a fast hd remaster of the actual game and not wasting time remaking it and sometimes if not often piss off some old fans with weird changes.

and most consoles and games that are bot that old are still easy to get, worst case you get the Rom and maybe a remake gamepad for your pc and you are good to go.


Especially Nintendo seems to like the idea of easy money with remakes since some years.

Of course they still produce new stuff as well I won't dare to say anything else but they could have all these teams doing the remakes doing something new if ppl wouldn't be such suckers for remakes.

 

[ThoD]

By remakes, do you mean actual remakes or just remasters? For remasters I don't really mind, provided that the game is fairly old and too much hassle to play in current age, but if they remake a game and it doesn't bring a heavy amount of improvement, I'll sorta be against it, as there's no point for it other than milking and it's just lazy. If remake is better than original by more than just a bit, then it's welcome for me.

 

[Sonic Angel Knight]

To be honest, because some people have their own kind of opinion for what defines remake, it's hard to say. If I wanted a game to play differently just so I can like it, I think I am better off looking for a new game that doesn't have to change too much for me to feel appeal to it. For example, Breath of fire is a game I played, I think it is okay, it can be better so if capcom decides to make it again for modern audience, they may decide to do other unexpected things to make it more accessible to larger audience and it may jeopardize the people who already like it into not liking it.

Do I like remakes? I have to have someone classify and identify games that is a Remake and bring it to my attention. I would need to know what the difference is in the old and new ones too. So far, I suppose a game like Lunar Silver star harmony for psp is a remake of the Sega CD game which is good. Remake of Megaman X by Maverick Hunter X on PSP is also good (Same goes for powered up) So it all depends on how it's viewed.

 

[Cyan]

I like remake/remaster for games I didn't play yet, because it's the opportunity to play the game on the current console I own and I don't have to unbox my old consoles and find/buy old games again (sometime, very hard to find in shops). Also, I can't plug my old consoles anymore, new TVs don't have the required hardware anymore (no Scart cable ! I can't connect my Snes, or PS1..., hopefully PS2 has YPbPr!), and even if new tv had the necessary plugs, the picture is often bad (240p is not very compatible nowadays). So, yes, there is emulation, but ... finding ROM/ISO is no fun, finding actual retail game neither.

I'd like to have more of them when one console get only sequels (for example, InFamous).
Having a remake (or even just a port !! fine enough for me) of the game released on previous console to get the full series on the same console is great. something like they did with Kingdom heart "all on PS4".

so, yeah, I'm fine with just a port, or a "classic" available on current consoles.

or like skyrim available on ALL possible plateform (I'm sure NES will get it too ! haha), people can just choose the console they want to play the game.

 

[Scarlet]

To me, remakes are a way of playing an old game how I remember they were, in oppose to how they are now. Take Wind Waker, back when it came out, it was absolutely stunning. It felt bright, colourful, and open. Looking back on it today, it doesn't stand up to that image in my mind. I can see how it was all of that, but with things moving on, it obviously becomes dated. Looking at Wind Waker HD, I get the same feeling I did when the original released. Everything is bright, each colour stands out. It's stunning, and I feel like how I did when I played the original. That sort of thing is why I appreciate remakes.

 

[Stephano]

I mean, I don't really mind them as long as they don't charge the full price tag. (*cough* Skyrim "cough*)
Some games need remasters for obvious reasons like Shadow of the Colossus for PS3 due to massive frame-rate issues or games that were ambitious enough to the point where the console was holding it back.

For remakes, It depends on what you define as remake. The Shadow of the Colossus "remake" is what I like to see in a remake, where things are left nearly untouched or slightly altered to those who played it in the past still see it as the same game. One game I would love to get truly remade is Dark Souls 2. Not like Scholar of the First Sin, but rather using Dark Souls 3 engine and fix the games major issues, but leave the story and the sequencing untouched.

Some games I believe should never be remade. Games like F.E.A.R. Half-Life 2, Bioshock, ect are games I would never want to see changed then how they are right now. Sure they can have a fresh coat of paint but It comes down to, is the game "revolutionary." As in if it is, do not change it.

 

[kuwanger]

I like remakes that aren't canon unless they're actually better than the original. The Metroid serious is pretty bad, for example, because there's way too much retroconning. Then again, even the stuff that's not a remake--*cough*Metroid: Other M*cough*--might well have a terrible story or characterizations, so it's not really limited to a remake. It just seems that remakes are too often made for relatively new games and feel the need to substantial change the story/gameplay so people want to play them while remakes that are more remasters are a lot less common.

So, yea, I'd probably have preferred if--for example--they had made a Metroid Gaiden: Return of Samus in a parallel universe or something, so the degree of continuity just didn't matter. Oh, and I think Luigi's Mansion for the 3DS is a bad idea. Might as well port Metroid Prime while they're at it--with PTSD Samus.

 

[Youkai]

hmm most if these are actually good reasons.

My problem is that if the game is really old you probably need to change a lot (depending on the kind of game) which can be bad for many fans of the original and if the game is not that old it feels like they using it as a cheap and e.asy cash grab (most of the time).

there are games that I would love to see a proper remake as well but seeing stuff like those Pokémon remakes make me kind of angry and still everyone loves it ... I would prefer everyone hating the remakes so thet they actually would feel the need to make something new each time or see these age of empire remake? not sure if its more of a remaster but as they changed some of the code ... well no idea still they should be ashamed selling this for full price.

didn't try it yet but another good or maybe bad example would be the secret of mana remake ... it was a nice idea and all but I heard from many people that it is really bad compared to the original ... if they would have just made something new instead of trying to make a remake maybe people would have liked it ... and so expensive only to play the same old game over and over again

 

[Taleweaver]

I understand the concern about remakes, but I don't share it.

For one: nobody has played every game out there. There's only a certain amount of time in a day you can dedicate to video gaming, and with the average time per game and the amount of games that are released, either your backlog or your wishlist grows faster than you can "consume" games. And that's just for the games that are actually ON your radar (meaning: your taste might change over time, so that awesome RTS or puzzle game you will come to love eventually might fly directly under your radar at the current). And of course: it's not like we as gamers are a static group. A toddler who's currently learning how to stand up might be really interested in Kirby or Mario games in a couple of years. Or teenagers that are prohibited by their parents to play violent games (yes...responsible parents DO exist )will grow old enough one day.

Second: have you tried playing really old games lately? More often than not, the gameplay was pretty refined (often around the first sequel, but that's another discussion) but the game looks horrible by today's standards. And call me spoiled, but the antics you used to do to just get a game running is something that can really drag you down. A remake might sound cheap if it "just" implements a few tweaks to up the resolution from CRT quality, but the result lasts throughout the game.

Third: is it really necessary to brand remakes as "easy cash grabs"? Try reading a few books on how the gaming industry works for a change. Lots of powerhouses of today really had to struggle with impossible hours, stress, unforeseen problems and so on just to release a game that MIGHT sell well enough to even break even on the cost. As technology grew, so did the cost and the audience's expectations. Yes, remakes are a lot cheaper to make (both in production and marketing), and thus far more likely to generate a profit. But describing that as a "cash grab" sort of gives the impression that management just pocket that money and run to the hills with it. In reality, I'm very confident that those profits are directly directed to the teams in the next cubicle that are working on that actual NEW game where it's just a gamble on whether it'll generate a profit at all.

 

[kuwanger]

For one: nobody has played every game out there. There's only a certain amount of time in a day you can dedicate to video gaming, and with the average time per game and the amount of games that are released, either your backlog or your wishlist grows faster than you can "consume" games.

One, I don't consider ports remakes. Two, a lot of games that are great never get remakes. Three, remaking games often means not making another game--which ties into your point three that game companies want an easy cash grab with a reliable seller to offset the risks of all the other games they make.

Second: have you tried playing really old games lately? More often than not, the gameplay was pretty refined (often around the first sequel, but that's another discussion) but the game looks horrible by today's standards. And call me spoiled, but the antics you used to do to just get a game running is something that can really drag you down. A remake might sound cheap if it "just" implements a few tweaks to up the resolution from CRT quality, but the result lasts throughout the game.

If the only concern is the graphics, then depending on the age of the system a reskin by fans of the game through an emulator makes more sense than a game company wasting resources on doing the reskinning themselves. Beyond that, the "call me spoiled" part is precisely why companies go for easy cash grabs: the cost of making so much HD graphics is prohibitively expensive. If you and others were more tolerant of graphics that aren't even bad but merely good for today (and great for the time, often), then less remakes would be necessary, game companies could waste less resources on graphic fidelity, and game companies could make more risky games. Ie, it'd be a massive win.

Third: is it really necessary to brand remakes as "easy cash grabs"?

Yes because we have to understand why companies are going for easy cash grabs. Some are definitely not interested in anything but the easy cash and it has nothing to do with trying to balance their books. Others genuinely just want to remake games because they think they can improve on a known formula, which is another way of saying that they want to experiment while having a virtually guaranteed easy cash grab. If we set our standards differently than the graphics or the certainty of a remake/remaster/sequel, then we'd likely see game companies willing to make a lot more interesting games. I'd say look at Wayforward as an example of a company that, while it definitely has sequels, also a lot of fan loyalty because they've demonstrated a variety of games with consistent quality that people are willing to gamble on their games.

In reality, I'm very confident that those profits are directly directed to the teams in the next cubicle that are working on that actual NEW game where it's just a gamble on whether it'll generate a profit at all.

Regardless of the intent, there's a serious glut of games in the market. Trying to win out by quality won't work any more than the '83 video game crash won out. In the end, it's the glut of games that's probably more the concern. Of course there's a lot more people who play games, but most aren't dedicated to spending large sums of money on several games to support their favorite studio. I guess I could point at Wayforward and argue their habit of developing third party titles to support their own titles is the same as the process of first party companies doing remakes or having a third party do it--Duck Tales Remastered--, so I'll admit it's not a trivial thing to disagree with you about.

But I don't think that we should accept remakes as paying the rent money so actual desired games are paid. In the end, we're the ones who are buying the remakes, so shouldn't we just be getting the games we want? And if game companies can't exist without remakes to support their highly probable flops, perhaps most game companies are just badly structured--which ties into the unreasonable demands of AAA games? Regardless, it only reinforces the point that remakes are "easy cash grabs".

 

[SoslanVanWieren]

lag

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I understand the concern about remakes, but I don't share it.

For one: nobody has played every game out there. There's only a certain amount of time in a day you can dedicate to video gaming, and with the average time per game and the amount of games that are released, either your backlog or your wishlist grows faster than you can "consume" games. And that's just for the games that are actually ON your radar (meaning: your taste might change over time, so that awesome RTS or puzzle game you will come to love eventually might fly directly under your radar at the current). And of course: it's not like we as gamers are a static group. A toddler who's currently learning how to stand up might be really interested in Kirby or Mario games in a couple of years. Or teenagers that are prohibited by their parents to play violent games (yes...responsible parents DO exist )will grow old enough one day.

Second: have you tried playing really old games lately? More often than not, the gameplay was pretty refined (often around the first sequel, but that's another discussion) but the game looks horrible by today's standards. And call me spoiled, but the antics you used to do to just get a game running is something that can really drag you down. A remake might sound cheap if it "just" implements a few tweaks to up the resolution from CRT quality, but the result lasts throughout the game.

Third: is it really necessary to brand remakes as "easy cash grabs"? Try reading a few books on how the gaming industry works for a change. Lots of powerhouses of today really had to struggle with impossible hours, stress, unforeseen problems and so on just to release a game that MIGHT sell well enough to even break even on the cost. As technology grew, so did the cost and the audience's expectations. Yes, remakes are a lot cheaper to make (both in production and marketing), and thus far more likely to generate a profit. But describing that as a "cash grab" sort of gives the impression that management just pocket that money and run to the hills with it. In reality, I'm very confident that those profits are directly directed to the teams in the next cubicle that are working on that actual NEW game where it's just a gamble on whether it'll generate a profit at all.

Some people just want the old game exactly the same but in better graphics and don't like it when some things changed in the remake to make it easier or changing the plot a bit.

 

[Taleweaver]

Some people just want the old game exactly the same but in better graphics and don't like it when some things changed in the remake to make it easier or changing the plot a bit.

Not to sound harsh, but "some people" can just play the original. I mean...one group wants things to remain as unchanged as possible while another group calls this very same thing a cash grab. If you fix exploits, you'll piss off people who actively used it (and loved the game for it), and if you don't fix exploits you'll piss off those who hate it. Change the art style and you've got groups complaining about it not being the same anymore, and if you don't do it others (or perhaps even the same) complain that it looks outdated. Basically: there's no way to please everyone, so there's no reason trying.

I'm not above this, btw. I just played through a remake of a game I used to like (it's called simply 'Z'). It started out near-impossible to play, as it attempted to force a 800x600 resolution on my 1080p monitor. This could be fixed, luckily enough. But as it was an RTS, I found it about ten times as easy as it used to be because Z is a real time strategy game. Meaning: I could see and anticipate about twice as much of the battlefield as I used to. I downvoted the game on steam mostly because it was too much like the original...and even mentioned that the main reason - you struggle more with getting your bots do your bidding than with the enemy - works both ways. In other words: I disliked the game because I was better able to use the wonky controls than my computer enemy.
The review sits atop many positive reviews of people who don't understand that these reviews won't just be read by nostalgics.

 

[SoslanVanWieren]

Not to sound harsh, but "some people" can just play the original. I mean...one group wants things to remain as unchanged as possible while another group calls this very same thing a cash grab. If you fix exploits, you'll piss off people who actively used it (and loved the game for it), and if you don't fix exploits you'll piss off those who hate it. Change the art style and you've got groups complaining about it not being the same anymore, and if you don't do it others (or perhaps even the same) complain that it looks outdated. Basically: there's no way to please everyone, so there's no reason trying.

I'm not above this, btw. I just played through a remake of a game I used to like (it's called simply 'Z'). It started out near-impossible to play, as it attempted to force a 800x600 resolution on my 1080p monitor. This could be fixed, luckily enough. But as it was an RTS, I found it about ten times as easy as it used to be because Z is a real time strategy game. Meaning: I could see and anticipate about twice as much of the battlefield as I used to. I downvoted the game on steam mostly because it was too much like the original...and even mentioned that the main reason - you struggle more with getting your bots do your bidding than with the enemy - works both ways. In other words: I disliked the game because I was better able to use the wonky controls than my computer enemy.
The review sits atop many positive reviews of people who don't understand that these reviews won't just be read by nostalgics.

They could have two modes one that stays true the the original and one that changes the game.

 

[jt_1258]

Well, I don't mind them if they are either:
A: Coming to the pc in which case hell ya, awesome looking graphics...(cough cough ffXV)
or B: Coming to the switch in which case heck ya it's portable now.
Though I suppose my points more so apply to ports than anything but either way if the remaster itself or the platform the remaster is coming to brings something worthwhile to the table then I'll gladly rebuy that game.

 

[Viri]

Here is a controversial opinion

Ya ready for it?

Spoiler

I thought Twin Snakes was better than MGS1 on PS1

 

[jt_1258]

Here is a controversial opinion

Ya ready for it?

Spoiler

I thought Twin Snakes was better than MGS1 on PS1

How is it controversial, it seemed like a pretty good remake.