freemandos
Member
Yap, that's why cinephiles with their higher standards should disappear too. And book readers. And more.
We are so sorry, too stubborn to die
.
Last edited:
It would so amazing if I could just make every person who says "No need for a remake, just release remaster." disappear. If only they were gone...
- Thread starter Liopleurodon
- Start date
We are so sorry, too stubborn to die
.
Soodanim
Member
Each remaster and remake has to be taken on its own merits. There isn't a set procedure.
The same can be said for remasters.
Metal Gear Solid Delta is perhaps the most faithful because it doesn't remake everything. Using the original VA for 99% of it ensures that it stays tethered to its roots, and if it didn't have technical/performance issues I'm sure it would have been universally praised.
Spyro Reignited was also very faithful, pretty much just making gameplay consistent across the trilogy.
Resident Evil's first remake was mostly faithful but added gameplay sections and changed the tone.
Resident Evil's 2, 3, and 4 remakes are all reimaginings of various degrees, with 3 being so unfaithful that I think the reaction influenced 4R's development.
The same can be said for remasters.
Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 1+2 Remasters are very well done from what I can tell).
Bioshock Remaster had mixed reviews because the remastered graphics arguably detracted in certain spots, but it did add things like developer commentary, a WIP museum, and NG+.
Dark Souls Remaster was largely pointless for anyone on PC because it was less a remaster and more a tweaked settings port, and 10 years before it wouldn't have had that label on the box and would have been described as an enhanced port.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
We were dogging on remasters here not ports.
We only really need ports. Remasters butcher art direction for graphics more than not, and remakes can often butcher the entire game
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
This whole remake vs remaster debacle is reason #756 why I PC game. You don't need a rerelease, remaster, or remake on a platform where backwards compatibility extends 40 years.... You just download and play the game.
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
But boobs invariably get downsized in remakes 
Witchilich
Member
Yes all Tales of Symphonia ports are based on the PS3 "remaster" which was based on the inferior PS2 version rather than the superior Gamecube version. Each subsequent port added more issues.
Lokaum D+
Member
Just emulate the hell of all games at higher res and frame
PaintTinJr
wouldnt aprove
PaintTinJr
wouldnt aprove
Last edited:
Witchilich
Member
Yeah you are not downloading the OG versions of GTA III/Vice City/San Andreas from Steam, just the modern demaster. Forget 40 years, most 2000s game are not on Steam and many early 2010s games. Most of the time when a dev makes a remaster they remove the OG version from Steam like you can't buy OG Dark Souls.
ChoosableOne
ChoosableAll
No need for those, just release a patch for it.
As long as there is a PC port, you don't need a remaster, only requiring an update to add support for XInput/DX10/12 or 64bit support. However some game's benefit from a remake (like the original Resident Evil or the first two GTA games, as they were really held beck by the technology)
Last edited:
Kacho
Gold Member
Nah, OG RE is superior to remake. I know that goes against the bog standard opinion on the internet, but I've always thought that.
The only things better in the remake are the graphics and the shark part. Everything else is a downgrade.
Last edited:
OGM_Madness
Member
I think remasters and ports are the same, with the difference being marketing, although ideally a remaster has some QOL while a port is identical to the source, but we know companies follow whatever marketing told them to put in the title.
Needless to say: there are many games I want to play and I'll be okay with a simple port just so that I can have access to it. A full remake, by definition, should be basically a new game from the ground up and could take 8 years to make while a simple port could take 11 months.
So, for example, Half-Life 2 on PS5? Just give me a port! Chrono Trigger? At this point, I don't think a simple port will satisfy players, they'll have to make a remake in either the HD 2D mold or DQ7 "re-imagined". The other day I got an urge to play Prototype… guess what? It's on PS5! Both games! They ported them at some point for PS4. That game doesn't need a remake. But I'm so glad a port exists.
Needless to say: there are many games I want to play and I'll be okay with a simple port just so that I can have access to it. A full remake, by definition, should be basically a new game from the ground up and could take 8 years to make while a simple port could take 11 months.
So, for example, Half-Life 2 on PS5? Just give me a port! Chrono Trigger? At this point, I don't think a simple port will satisfy players, they'll have to make a remake in either the HD 2D mold or DQ7 "re-imagined". The other day I got an urge to play Prototype… guess what? It's on PS5! Both games! They ported them at some point for PS4. That game doesn't need a remake. But I'm so glad a port exists.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
Well, PC gaming isn't exclusive to steam and there's such sites like MyAbandonware that catalogue and preserve older games/older versions of games you can play.
Whatever is on steam alone stretches further back & encompasses much more than any console storefront, as well as GOG providing many older versions of games.
Guilty_AI
Member
Remasters are quicker to make and theres less chances they'll fuck something up. They exist purely for easier acessibility.
I generally consider remakes to be different games from the original. Modern attempts at an old idea under the assumption its possible to improve on something that had been limited by hardware and knowledge. Still, ultimately a different experience.
When we say a remaster is enough, what we actually mean is: "we dont believe you can improve on the experience of the original, so just give us the original"
I generally consider remakes to be different games from the original. Modern attempts at an old idea under the assumption its possible to improve on something that had been limited by hardware and knowledge. Still, ultimately a different experience.
When we say a remaster is enough, what we actually mean is: "we dont believe you can improve on the experience of the original, so just give us the original"
Last edited:
Gamer_By_Proxy
About to beat off
Remasters is basically about the same as just getting the PC version. You get the fps boost and can mod the textures. done. So I agree, we should just get remakes.
Guilty_AI
Member
Dont leave our console brothers hanging. Also, a remaster does allow us to skip some annoying steps that would be required to manually "remaster" a game on PC.
bender
What time is it?
I don't begrudge them existing as the older titles are less palatable to modern audiences due to control schemes, design philosophies, or dated visuals. Most of the remakes I've played are inferior to the originals for various reasons. For example
Delta suffers a bit from the enhanced movement abilities which trivializes the enemy AI a bit as that wasn't adjusted to compensate which isn't so dissimilar to The Twin Snakes.
Delta suffers a bit from the enhanced movement abilities which trivializes the enemy AI a bit as that wasn't adjusted to compensate which isn't so dissimilar to The Twin Snakes.
DreamcastSkies
Gold Member
I'll never understand the frustration people feel for remakes/remasters. Don't buy them. New titles and original IP release regularly. If remakes/remasters review well and sell well, what do you have to stand on for your frustration? These metrics show they are quality products and people want them. There is immense love for the 90s/00s era of gaming. Remakes/remasters tap into that. If the products are good, and people want them, what are you so frustrated about? New IP still release.
Gamer_By_Proxy
About to beat off
imo next gen $10 upgrades should be the only "remasters". It's basically all you get anyway. Why make it a separate product with a big price tag?
Guilty_AI
Member
Business practices around these is another matter. I do agree fleecing $60/70 for whats essentially a resolution and texture bump for a game that isn't even old enough to drive is ridiculous.
Last edited:
lame gag1990
Member
Ugh remakes... Such a lack of creativity. There's so many of them now. Apart from REmake, the rest are inferior from memory. Just not needed at all.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
You know what's even quicker to make with even less chances of fucking something up?
A port. Like what Rockstar did with RDR1.
Remasters often tamper with the art direction of the game in subtle but still damaging ways that overall fuck up the mood and aesthetic of the game even if it's not to the same extent a bad remake can. Like the Wind Waker HD remaster screwing up all the lighting in the game and messing up what was otherwise a very pristine and clean cel shaded style, or Sonic Adventure DX and its terrible plastic models overlaid over what's otherwise very good looking low-poly environments. Ditto for the shoddy-looking Deus Ex remaster coming out in a couple months.
99% of the time, what an old game needs is simply a higher resolution and framerate to be suitably presentable on a modern console especially if it's coming from sometime after 2002. Tampering with the original visual intent of the game almost never goes well and it's safer to just give people the same game on a new system.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Member
Just to be clear, what i consider a remaster is:You know what's even quicker to make with even less chances of fucking something up?
A port. Like what Rockstar did with RDR1.
Remasters often tamper with the art direction of the game in subtle but still damaging ways that overall fuck up the mood and aesthetic of the game even if it's not to the same extent a bad remake can. Like the Wind Waker HD remaster screwing up all the lighting in the game and messing up what was otherwise a very pristine and clean cel shaded style, or Sonic Adventure DX and its terrible plastic models overlaid over what's otherwise very good looking low-poly environments.
99% of the time, what an old game needs is simply a higher resolution and framerate to be suitably presentable on a modern console especially if it's coming from sometime after 2002. Tampering with the original visual intent of the game almost never goes well and it's safer to just give people the same game on a new system.
-Make game compatible with modern systems and periphericals
-Resolution bump
-FPS bump
-Maybe a few simple bugfixes and balancing changes
Stuff like changing visuals is already entering remake territory. At most i would accept some minimal asset improvements like texture bumps or slightly more details to some objects, as long as its subtle and doesnt change the overall appearance and atmosphere of the game.
Last edited:
Soodanim
Member
Good point. Even something intended to be faithful can disturb the balance the original was designed with.