Support NeoGAF

[Swagballs717]

I've been thinking about Bloober Team's upcoming remake of Silent Hill 2, particularly about how it differs from Team Silent's original. The camera perspective is more akin to Resident Evil's over-the-shoulder perspective as opposed to the original's more detached, occasionally fixed perspective, the combat has some more depth to it, and the voice acting has taken a bit of a direction. I hear people saying the remake should be more faithful to the original, but that made me wonder, HOW faithful should a remake be? If it's basically the same game at the end of the day, then why even bother with the remake? In that case, we'd already have the game that's proven to be good and is very likely available for cheaper. You could do what Resident Evil 2 and Final Fantasy VII did and go in a drastically new direction with the gameplay and presentation, but that would risk being accused of not being faithful to the original at all.

What do you all think? What's the balance of new vs. old that needs to be struck for a remake to be good in your eyes?

 

[64bitmodels]

it depends really.

 

[Bloobs]

 

[Azelover]

It depends. I think it's okay to make improvements, as long as you don't change the gameplay so much that it turns into a different genre.

For example Final Fantasy VII remake. It's a fine spectacle but the battle system barely resembles the original. It's not a JRPG anymore as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Little Mac]

Graphics and user interface primarily. Maybe little quality of life boosts like save points or battle speed in certain type of games (ie turnbase rpgs).

 

[Danjin44]

FFVIIR series are not actual “remakes” they reimagined and part of FFVII complete series, same way Crises Core is.

On topic being “fateful” is not always great idea because some games just not aged well….for example original Drakengard, it has fascinating story but the actual gameplay needs complete overhaul.

I’m currently playing Trials of Mana in my opinion they did a great job being faithful while also improving the gameplay to make the experience smoother.

 

[Fbh]

I honestly tend to find 1:1 remakes boring and/or unnecessary, specially for games from the Ps2 era onwards. Give me a solid Remaster with maybe a few quality of life improvements and I'm fine with that.

For a "Remake" I'd much rather get a re-imagining in the style of FF7 Remake with new gameplay, new areas, new mechanics and story elements, etc. I had my issues with Remake (and still haven't played rebirth) but ultimately felt like I got more from it than if they had just made the exact same game again with nicer graphics. I found stuff like SOTC remake and Demon Souls remake quite forgettable, it's cool the first couple of hours until you get used to the graphics and then you are just playing the same games you've already played a bunch of times already....again.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Playing through the 20 year special Beyond Good and Evil and I wish they had remade this with larger environments instead of just upgraded textures. Everything is so tightly bunched together, it hurts to play. This was the way it was 20 years ago. How many Claustrophobic gamers were cured because of these tiny levels.

 

[John Bilbo]

A good remake should understand the intention of the game design behind the original game and refine known issues if there are any.

 

[Salmonboy]

After playing 30 hours of FFVII - Rebirth. NOT LIKE THIS! It's pure trash!

 

[tomato shrub]

Depends... for many games, you need nothing more than high def and maybe a few tweaks like skippable cutscenes and manual button assignments. SH2 would still be amazing if they simply adopted the fan mod on PC where the controls are less clunky and key items have better visibility on the map. Instead the remake is practically a completely different game. Speaking of which, as good as the new Resident Evil remakes are, they are practically new interpretations and absolutely don't replace the originals.

I'd say faithful graphical remasters like Ocarina of Time 3D and Metroid Prime Remastered with maybe a few QOL improvments in the controls department is what I prefer...
Well, actually I'd prefer much better availability for old console games. Like GOG for PC games. We've had so many 8- and 16-bit collections rehashed over and over, let's move on to later generations already. No need to spend so many resources on big remakes of only a small amount of old titles.

 

[Bring Back Scalebound]

I believe there should be no rules for Remakes. Nothing should be sacred.

The only thing that should matter, is that it has to be just as good or better then the Original.

You can change as much as you want, you can keep as much as you want, you can play with as much you want, and you can ADD as much as you want.

My issue with the Silent Hill 2 Remake, is that I believe Silent Hill 2 set the bar VERY high for any possible revisit of that game.
And based on everything I saw, I don't think the Remake comes close to living up to that bar.

But changes, in my opinion, nothing is or should be sacred.

Even if the argument would be "Changing this, would be missing the point of the vision and themes of the original", which is totally valid, I go back to that same thing, is your change just as good as what the Original offered? Is it better? Then that's what matters.

 

[Mownoc]

There's not really a correct answer to this. It depends on the game. I'm more than happy with Ratchet (2016) being different from the original game. I'm also happy with Crash NSane Trilogy being very faithful.

If you are changing things you better make sure you do it well though. People are a lot more forgiving of 1:1 remakes, any changes will be viewed under a harsh lens.

 

[ReyBrujo]

I think the programmers and designers need to play at least 50, 100 hours of the original game to understand what could be improved, especially little nuances with maps, camera, menu handling, etc. If possible it should include censored or removed sections of the original game (if they are able to access those resources).

And good remake should include the original game as bonus. Okay, maybe that only works with some Digital Eclipse releases.

 

[semiconscious]

What do you all think? What's the balance of new vs. old that needs to be struck for a remake to be good in your eyes?

basically, when doing a 'remake', a developer altering anything they choose to alter (up to & including redesigned graphics & new vocals) will always be at the risk of offending the fan base. if people feel the remake has either disrespected, compromised, or even sabotaged the original, there will be blowback. some developers play it safe (bluepoint), some 'modify' to current standards (capcom), & some push it into 're-imagine' territory (squeenix), but there will always be a percentage of fans disappointed. it's all about keeping that percentage as low as possible, & there's examples of all 3 types of remakes that've managed to do that...

i'm not sure there's a 'right way. it's more of a crap shoot on the part of each developer than it is anything else...

 

[SHA]

It's not the same game, look at the original resident evil remake, it's just different and worthy for older fans, it won't hurt either ways.

 

[simpatico]

Defensive fort, cathedral. It's really the exact same thing. I think remake developers should actively go against the original designer's core principals wherever they can. I'm talking fundamental changes to the core aesthetic and story. As long as the ray tracing is hittin', nothing else really matters.

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[AngelMuffin]

Reboot/Reimagining:Tomb Raider 2015 (brand new game)

Remake: Demon’s Souls PS5 / RE4 2023 (complete graphical overhaul with a few QoL improvements)

Remaster: Dark Souls Remastered, Metroid Prime Remastered (resolution/FPS boost, enhanced graphics)

Retarded: FF7R

 

[Metnut]

It’s up to the creators. Personally, not knowing exactly what’s going to happen has made the FF7Remakes a much better experience for me.

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[BlackTron]

Need to make the right calls on the right games. That's why this stuff is never simple. You're either squandering an opportunity to fix the game or tampering with art and the difference is a fine line.

Great example...Starcraft Remastered was wise to leave the original game engine in-tact and just superimpose new graphics over it, because high level play is characterized by mastering its dated mechanics, warts and all. Only selecting 12 units at a time, bad pathfinding and clunky Dragoons are just part playing SC that's mitigated through skills. If a different RTS got a remake it might be a better idea to redo it in a new game engine with more QOL improvements.

 

[Astral Dog]

It depends, are they aiming for a reimagining or a remaster?

the later is a little more simple, upgraded assets,improved framerate, new art, qol upgrades, new content is optional but always welcome.
For example Zelda Ocarina of Time 3D, Metroid Prime remastered, Kirby return to dreamland Deluxe, Resident Evil HD

The first is basically a brand new game that respects the original,i think most fans naturally would expect all the content + additions(both storyline and gameplay), the RE3Remake project had a mixed reception because it had too many changes and cuts.

Not many remakes are this ambitious,Final Fantasy VII Remake, Resident Evil 4,Resident Evil Remake,Metroid Zero Mission.

In the end it depends on the project, what matters is that it improves the quality of the original work,im fine with both approaches as long its not anything lazy like the emulated Mario collection ,or that Silent Hill mess

 

[Azelover]

FFVIIR series are not actual “remakes” they reimagined and part of FFVII complete series, same way Crises Core is.

On topic being “fateful” is not always great idea because some games just not aged well….for example original Drakengard, it has fascinating story but the actual gameplay needs complete overhaul.

I’m currently playing Trials of Mana in my opinion they did a great job being faithful while also improving the gameplay to make the experience smoother.

I agree with you in essence. To me great gameplay is never dated, but the context is always changing. It may age differently depending on the person playing. So maybe we should consider what the target audience is. And even then I believe we need to exercise moderation with the changes. I'm all for improvements but central structure of the game needs to be maintained, and I think that includes the gameplay.

 

[Swagballs717]

Metroid Prime is kind of a bad example because that fully presents itself as a remaster. I.E., literally the exact same game with a fresh coat of paint.

 

[Muffdraul]

I don't think RE2 remake had too many changes, and one of my first thoughts after playing it was "Wouldn't it be awesome if they did a Silent Hill remake like this? Too bad that'll never happen."

I dunno, I can't fathom looking at this SH2 remake and whining like a bitch that it's "too different." If I had a stick that far up my ass I'd go to the emergency room.

 

[Bloobs]

Metroid Prime is kind of a bad example because that fully presents itself as a remaster. I.E., literally the exact same game with a fresh coat of paint.

DF classifies it as a remake. So do I.

 

[Ulysses 31]

As little as possible when it comes to how you progress through the story/game.

Flesh out things that felt underdeveloped before, cut bloat is there was any.

 

[Plague Doctor]

Depends on what is being remade.

The best remakes in media have been ones from either obscure originals or if the quality was lacking in the original.

Well known classics being remade are far more contentious with no consensus of it being even close to the original. Typically they are seen as massive downgrades to the classic.

In gaming, most people seem to want content more or less kept in tact. They are looking for better graphical fidelity, modern QOL implementations, things like that. They basically want what would be considered a remaster on steroids with 99% of content being true just looking amazing by current standards.

It can divert, but like with other media, it will be contentious. Every content/design change will be scrutinized and diehard fans of the originals could become the loudest critics.

Now... remaking either an obscure game or dogshit original, you can change a lot potentially and come out a winner.

 

[Pejo]

There's (unfortunately) no guidelines for this kind of thing, it's gonna vary a lot on a case-by-case basis. I like to think that if you are having a hard time to decide to change something, you should err on the side of keeping it the same as the original, though. Just my 2c.

I will say this, FF7 remake changed way too much.

 

[brenobnfm]

If done by the original developer, whatever they wanna do, if not, don't change anything apart from updating the graphics and performance, not even QoL shit, it's the way it is for a reason.

Reboot/Reimagining:Tomb Raider 2015 (brand new game)

Remake: Demon’s Souls PS5 / RE4 2023 (complete graphical overhaul with a few QoL improvements)

Remaster: Dark Souls Remastered, Metroid Prime Remastered (resolution/FPS boost, enhanced graphics)

Retarded: FF7R

lol you know Metroid Prime and Demon's Souls received the same treatment, right?

 

[AngelMuffin]

If done by the original developer, whatever they wanna do, if not, don't change anything apart from updating the graphics and performance, not even QoL shit, it's the way it is for a reason.



lol you know Metroid Prime and Demon's Souls received the same treatment, right?

Lol, You can’t be serious? Night & Day difference between the DS Remake & MP Remaster. Have you actually played the originals and new versions? It’s hard to respond to this since I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not

 

[Games of Today]

I would say The Last of Us remake is probably the textbook example.

I'd kill to se that happen to Uncharted 1. But something tells me that part of Amy Hennig's departing NDA was that the original trilogy could never be re-made until X amount of years pass.

 

[rm082e]

To me, I see a big difference between "remaster" and "remake":

"Remaster" - all content and systems are kept exactly the same as the original. The only thing that should be modified (and the reason for a remake to exist) are graphics updates (textures, frame rates, etc.)and cleaning up technical problems in the original version.

"Remake" - This would be the above, but also includes the freedom to update systems, add in new content, change story elements, etc. To me, "remake" means you're inevitably going to upset some of the purist fans of the original because they can't stand anything being changed. That's not a problem, it's inevitable.

I personally don't care about Remasters. I think the only one I can recall putting time into is the version of Resident Evil that came out for the GC and later on PC. I guess someone might object to calling it a remaster given they did make some updates to the controls, but I remember it being pretty faithful to the original.

I really liked the Demon's Souls and Dead Space remakes. I haven't played the Diablo II remake, but I'm glad they did it. I wanted to be excited about FF7, but once I saw they were using it as an excuse to draw it out into a new trilogy of games, I lost all interest. What I really wanted there was a remake of the PS1 game with modern HD graphics (like Sea of Stars maybe), and I wanted Adam Boyse to end with "And it's coming to PS4 this holiday season".

 

[brenobnfm]

Lol, You can’t be serious? Night & Day difference between the DS Remake & MP Remaster. Have you actually played the originals and new versions? It’s hard to respond to this since I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not

They're absolutely the same kind of treatment, Demon' Souls having some animations here and there are still aesthetic changes. The fact the you put Demon's Souls alongside Resident Evil 4 Remake (which should be grouped with FF7R) and Metroid Prime alongside Dark Souls shows you have no idea of what you're talking about. Also Tomb Raider is from 2013 lol.

 

[justiceiro]

Only one change is forbidden:
DON'T CUT CONTENT

 

[Hemingwayoffbase]

They should fix all the bad stuff and keep all the good stuff.

 

[LectureMaster]

This much.